APRIL 1994
STRA TEGIC PLAN
FOR
ARIZONA 'S
INFORMA TION
INFRASTRUCTURE
Ptepared By:
AZTEL 2000 Ttwk pork
FIFE SYMINGTON
Governor
J. ELLlOlT HlBBS
Director
ARIZONA DEPARTMENOTF ADMINISTRATION
Information Services Division
1616 West Adorns
Phoenix, AZ 85007
APRIL 1994
On behalf of the AZTEL 2000 Task Force and the telecommunications sub-committee, I am
pleased to present the Strategic Plan for Arizona's Information Infuastructure. This plan was
developed through a collaborative effort on the part of State, City of Phoenix, and Maricopa
County governments; the Universities; and the private sector. This has been a unique
opportunity to partner with information users and providers across various political
boundaries. Although there are many separate networks being used, each of the participants
have recognized that the concept of a common border-to-border telecommunications network
can be the enabler to providing improved methods for accessing government information and
services.
Telecommunications networking has become an important issue to many different groups in
Arizona. This is demonstrated by the efforts of the Governor's Strategic Partnership for
Economic Development (GSPED) group, the Arizona Educational and Informational
~elecommunicationsC ooperative (AEITC), and several other groups seeking ways to improve
access to information.
The sharing of ideas in AZTEL 2000 meetings has resulted in a mission, vision, goals, and
objectives that illustrate a broad understanding of the information needs of Arizona. The goals
and objectives have gone beyond the internally focused technical issues to create a broader
perspective of service to the citizens of Arizona in applications such as education, health, and
public safety. To achieve a common network, it is mandatory to have a point of focus for
government to realize the ultimate benefits of technology in meeting the strategic business
challenges of today.
We feel this plan will serve as the catalyst for on-going discussion and a guide for future
actions to meet the challenges and opportunities posed to the governments of Arizona by the
information age.
I wish to thank everyone that participated in the plan preparation and all those that took the
time to complete the telecommunications surveys which provided valuable information in the
development of implementation strategies.
Chief Information Officer
Acknowledgments
T his section contains a list of the individuals
whose tireless efforts have resulted in the
formulation of the AZTEL 2000 strategy.
J. Elliott Hibbs Director - Department of
Administration (DOA)
Edward V. Hatler CIO/Assistant Director DOA -
Information Services Division
Rob Olding MIS Bureau Administrator - Department
of Corrections (DOC)
Bill Pierce Assistant Director, Data Administration
Division - Department of Economic Security (DES)
Kathryn Kilroy Deputy Associate Superintendent -
Department of Education (DOE)
Larry Dannenfeldt Associate Director, Information
Technical Services - Department of Health Services
PHs)
Steve West Computer System Manager - Legislative
Council
Gary Peet Director, MIS - Arizona Supreme Court
Rudy Serino Deputy Director - DOA
Jeff McNany STARPAS Project Manager -
Corporation Commission
Barbera Bridgewater Assistant Director,
I.S.D. - Arizona Health Cost Care Containment
System (AHCCCS)
Rick Kleinschmidt MIS Manager - Department
of Commerce
Manny Lerma Director of Government
Relations - US West
John McDowell Data Processing Manager -
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Tony Miele Director - Library Extension
Division
Rupert Loza Assistant Director, Data
Processing - Arizona Lottery
Jim Goodlett Information Services Manager -
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
Janelle O'Dell Executive Director - Arizona
Educational and Informational
Telecommunications Cooperative (AEITC)
Mr. John Badal AT&T
Bob Ramming Acting Assistant Director,
Information Systems - Department of Public
Safety (DPS)
Mr. Alan Hald Microage
Dr. Larry Rapagnani Associate Vice President
for Computing and Information Technology -
University of Arizona
Mr. Donald Issacson Ridge & Issacson, P. C.
Mr. Steve Wheeler Snell & Wilmer
Richard Carlson Assistant Director, Service
Bureau - DPS
Jan Baltzer Director of Computing &
Communications - Maricopa Community
Colleges
Art Ashton Arizona Board of Regents
Dr. Bill Lewis Vice President for Information
Technology - Arizona State University
Dr Ed Groenhout Assistant Vice President
for Educational Systems Development -
Northern Arizona University
Mr. C. A. Howlett Lewis and Roca
Mr. Ron Trascente Vice President - Honeywell
Communications Flight Systems
Curt Knight Manager Carrier Services
Section - DPS
Linda Cannoli IRM Manager - Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Pete Edgar Data Branch Manager -
Department of Game and Fish
Bob Buse EDP System Manager, Data
Administration Division - DES
Paul Van Gundy IRM Manager - Industrial
Commission
Ted Kraver Interim Information Systems
Coordinator - LearningmesearcWEnterprise,
Inc.
Dr. Henry Hoyt Interim Information Systems
Coordinator- Maricopa County
Frank Secondo Assistant Director,
Administration Services - Department of Water
Resources (D WR)
Laurie Dryden Supervisor of Licensing -
Education Real Estate Department
David McCarroll Acting Deputy Director -
Youth Treatment & Rehabilitation
J. David Hann Governor's Automation
Oversight Committee
John Jacobs Governor's Automation
Oversight Committee
Dennis Kittrell EDP Manager II - DOE
The AZTEL 2000 Sub-committee:
Edward V. Hatler CIO/Assistant Director
DOA - Information Services Division
Rob Olding MIS Bureau Administrator - DOC
Bob Buse EDP System Manager
Administration Division - DES
Mr. Alex Belous Program Specialist - DOE
John Amidon Technical Support Manager -
DOT
John Evarts Manager, Network Services -
AHCCCS
Curt Knight Manager, Carrier Services
Section - DPS
Jeff Mcnany STARPAS Project Manager -
Corporation Commission
Bruce Hensley Administration Services
Manager - AHCCCS
Max Brawley Information Technology
Manager - City of Phoenix
Mr. Bill Phillips (For Lera Riley) City of
Phoenix, Representing the Arizona League of
Cities and Towns
Rick Woods Technical Support Specialist III -
DOR
Frank Gazda Programmer Analyst -
Department of Game and Fish
Tom Young Planning Coordinator I.S.D. -
DOA
Kathryn Kilroy Deputy Associate
Superintendent - DOE
Barbera Bridgewater Assistant Director I.S.D.
- AHCCCS
Dr Bill Lewis Vice Provost for Information
Technology - Arizona State University
Dr. Henry Hoyt Interim Information Systems
Coordinator - Maricopa County
Guy Wilson Project Leader - DES
Larry Beauchat Communications Manager - DOA
Table of Content
I . Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 6
I1 . Introduction .................................................................................................................. 7
I11 . Current Environment ............................................................................................... 10
Problem Statement ................................................................................................1..0..
Key Issues ................................................................................................................1. 0
The AZTEL 2000 Information Survey ....................................................................1. 1
What the Survey Data Shows ..................................................................................1..1
The Need for a Statewide Network ........................................................................... 12
IV . Future Environment ................................................................................................ 13
V . Restructuring Government With New Technology ................................................ 14
VI . Vision for Arizona's Future Communications Services ........................................ 16
VII . Organizational Structure ......................................................................................... 18
VIII . The AZTEL 2000 Direction: Goals. Objectives. & Strategies ............................... 20
Part A . Development of Goals. Objectives. and Strategies ....................................2. 0
Part B . Integration of Goals. Objectives. and Strategies ..........................................2 1
Part C . Progress Measurements and Feedback Mechanisms ..................................2. 8
Part D . Summary ..................................................................................................3..0..
IX . AZTEL 2000 Implementation Plan .......................................................................... 31
Appendix: AZTEL 2000 Survey Results ................................................................................. 34
Glossary .......................................................................................................................................... 42
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 48
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure 5
I. Executive Summary
I n the Spring of 1993, Governor Fife Symington AZTEL 2000 presents a vision of future
asked the Arizona Department of Administration to communications systems and services, and
"Create a common statewide telecommunications recommends the creation of an Information
strategy...". A task force consisting of representatives Infrastructure Policy Board to coordinate and oversee
of State, County, and City agencies, elected officials, the development of Arizona's telecommunications
and business interests was assembled under the name infrastructure. The report also contains a four-part
AZTEL 2000. The AZTEL series and summarv of
2000 Task Force held goals, objectives, and
meetings, conducted surveys, strategies, complemented by
studied issues, assessed an implementation
strengths and weaknesses, "Create a common statewide telecommunications schedule.
and developed a report strategy" which ensures the creation of an
entitled the Strategic Plan for environment to support and maintain Finally, AZTEL 2000
Arizona's Information recommends the immediate
Infrastructure. This report establishment and
was composed with the endorsement of a project
participation of thirty-four team consisting of
public and private entities designated specialists, many
through the provision of of whom are to be drawn
recognized telecommuni- from and supported by
cations and systems experts members of the AZTEL
and leaders, and led by the 2000 Task Force. A smaller
Department of group of hand-picked team
Administration. members has been identified
and will serve as the base-
The report concludes that unit for an application to the
current and future National Telecommuni-telecommunications
cations and Information
environments are central to Administration (NTIA)
the economic, social, and under the Telecommuni-educational
growth of the cations and Information
businesses and people of the Infrastructure Assistance
State, and that the Program (TIIAP). It is
infrastructure needed to support Arizona's emerging envisioned that the project team will function as staff
future must be flexible, dynamic, and inclusive. for continuing AZTEL 2000 activities in planning and
The AZTEL 2000 Task Force cites studies and critical development, and as a bridge to a formal structure
assumptions leading to service improvements and resulting from the advent of legislation authorizing the
creating an impetus toward restructuring government, Information Infrastructure Policy Board recommended
developing responsive organizational structures, above.
preparing for informational requisites, and open access.
BENEEITS:
d Leverage Skills and Resources
d Ensure proper investment in technozogies
d Reduces Time to Deliver
d Allows the Ability to Exploit New Methods, techniques,
processes afforded by Emerging Technologies
d Conservative estimates indicate a net return of about
20% of the annual Telecom Budget
1
6 Stare of Arizona
IP. Introduction w e live in an ever-changing information age outlet has presented their own perspective on the
where every decision, opportunity, or plan information superhighway.
depends on the availability, timeliness, The State of Arizona is no different. In 1992, Elliott
relevance, and accuracy of information. Currently, Hibbs, Director of the Department of Administration
Arizona does not have the ability to provide this (DOA), became associated with several different
information electronically in a uniform, real-time activities, all of which appeared to be addressing the
environment, inhibiting the State's ability to compete in same or similar issues concerning the current and
today's highly competitive society. Our vision for future telecommunications infrastructure of the State of
AZTEL 2000 is: Arizona. These activities included:
"Through cooperative efforts, Arizona's information The Governor's State Long-term Improvement
infrastructure should provide the highest quality in Management (SLIM) program.
services and accessibility to promote cost effective,
efficient, accurate, and timely information exchanges The DOA's study of it's own
for public sector users, business partners, and citizens" telecommunications needs.
It was determined in a recent The Governor's
session of the AZTEL 2000 Science and
Task Force that the following Technology
critical success factors must be Council report
achieved if we are to bring the on drivers for
benefits of AZTEL 2000 to the the State's
State of Arizona: + Other Agencies and Organ&zationa economic
u s sprint ? Lcag"e Of c i t i e s and Town. + city of P~IOC~~X growth.
Official recognition of r M ~ O~Oo - u~n i t ~ Colleges
the network project by . HO~-ell r AEITC Governor's
the Arizona legislature UO tSh Weres sMt nquind .. MMAarGl copa County Strategic
and the Governor. 4 GAOC + State Agencies . ACC
Partnership for
a AHCCCS . G~PED Economic
The authorization of a BOARD OF REGENTS + state CIO council
* court.
Development
full-time AZTEL 2000 c ~ t t o r n e yG enerpl'. ~ m c e (GSPED)
project team by the + MU
r U o f A
Activities.
Governor. c NAu Because
The benefits of AZTEL Arizona's
2000 are clearly approach to
articulated for all networking and
participants (both users communications
and providers). has been
fragmented in the past, many people have
Total commitment is achieved for the expressed an interest in forming some type of
development, implementation, and use of the association to organize current efforts and to
Arizona information infrastructure. prepare for future needs and opportunities.
All users are involved in the creation, Arizona Educational and Informational
implementation, and management of Arizona's Telecommunications Cooperative (AEITC)
telecommunications infrastructure. Activities. AEITC is dedicated to encouraging
An effective regulatory environment must be and advancing cooperative planning,
developed to promote the development of a development, and implementation of
robust information infrastructure environment. educational and informational
telecommunications in the State of Arizona.
Technology advances are well managed and
implemented. Social and economic paradigm shifts.
The Gartner Group reported in the February 1994 Changes in computing and telecommunications
Strategic Planning Research Note on Enterprise technologies.
Network Strategies that: The National Agenda, a vision of Change for
"Not since AT&Tfs divestiture in 1984 has there been America, which states that "the development of
as much hyperbole and uncertainty in the a broad band, interactive telecommunications
telecommunications industry as that generated by the network linking the nation's businesses, schools,
events involving Information Superhighways" libraries, hospitals, governments, and others
could pay enormous dividends':
Over the past few months, virtually every major
information technology, business, and general press
Strategic Plan for ArizonaS Telecommunications Infrastructure 7
Armed with this knowledge,. the Department Of
Administration drafted an Executive Order for a
Government Telecommunications Task Force and
delivered it to the Governor's office for consideration.
Arizona's current telecommunications infrastructure
consists of redundant systems, data, and information;
technical inconsistencies; and limited integrated
telecommunications. This results in an inability to
maintain or increase our competitive edge in today's
highly technical
environment. A collection of
non-integrated systems
without (1) the means for
cost effective, centrally
managed administration, and
(2) the ability to integrate or
consolidate costs and
resources, cannot be
restructured without a
tremendous amount of
planning, discipline, and
teamwork. Even though the
problem has implications for
a multitude of areas of
business and technology, the
AZTEL 2000 Task Force was
organized and has dedicated
itself to the area of improved
state-of-the-art
telecommunications.
Support of our telecommunications enterprises
in the global marketplace
Readily available government services
Enhanced access to health care
Improved public safety and emergency care
* Improved life-long education
Improved economic
well-being
Considerations:
- Stakeholders
On-going governing and oversight responsibility(ies)
Business requirements and the ability to integrate same
Quantijiable benefits
Connectivity & operational implications of shared services I Strategic and tactical investment strategies
Available resources on current needs assessment(s)
Operation, maintenance, and enhancements during transition
On-going funding for operation, maintenance, and enhancements
Ability to re-invest savings to make this a sev-funding effort
Authority for initiation, implementation, operation, and funding
In this day and age, the information infrastructure is
critical to the functioning of a modern society. As in
other modern economies, the competitive survival of
Arizona's business and work force depends on both the
flow of information and the infrastructure that controls
that information within the State. Critical services such
as government, education, manufacturing, agriculture,
financial services, transportation, wholesale and retail
commerce, and utilities are all becoming increasingly
dependent on telecommunications for cost effective
administration.
Social, economic, and technical issues are driving the
State of Arizona into a collaborative approach for
addressing this new paradigm shift. Arizona entities,
both public and private, can accelerate the use of time-saving,
productivity-boosting, distance-spanning
information technologies for Arizona's people,
communities, and the private sector. This can create,
maintain, and enhance the economic development of
Arizona, as well as adopt a strategic information
infrastructure that moves information within and,
where appropriate, to and from the State.
As with other states, the drivers promoting the need for
this type of activity within Arizona are:
North American Free
Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) data link for
expanded commerce
Improved government
cost, efficiency, and
effectiveness
A balance between
information access and
individual privacy
Timely, efficient, and
cost-effective
introduction to and use
of appropriate emerging
technologies
* Affordable
telecommunications
services
Increased choices in telecommunications and
information services
Key Infrastructure Assumptions
The following list shows the key AZTEL 2000
infrastructure assumptions for Arizona's
telecommunications infrastructure:
It must meet, or be able to evolve to meet, all or
the majority of telecommunication requirements
of the State, County, and City agencies and
institutions. When fully implemented, it must
provide appropriate standards to interconnect
and provide access to host computers across
agencies.
Implementation should take advantage of
existing equipment and networks to minimize
costs (for example, the fiber ring on the Capitol
Mall known as MAGNET).
It will be "open" and, whenever feasible, based
on recognized industry standards such as ANSI,
ISO, and OSF.
Enhanced global competitive advantage for our It must be flexible. The network must provide
business clusters flexibilitv to exvand andlor contract easilv and
Rapid development of quality jobs
Environmental, family, and business benefits
from telecommuting
economi~allyt6 accommodate new applications
when required.
8 State of Arizona
It must employ appropriate measures to protect
the confidentiality and integrity of information.
Additionally, it must include a disciplined plan
for business continuation in the event of a local,
regional, or national disaster.
It should use proven technology and, more
importantly, the infrastructure should evolve to
encompass emerging technology where
appropriate without rendering significant
portions of existing environments obsolete.
for the strategic development and use of Arizona's
telecommunications infrastructure. The management
and operational style utilized throughout this effort was
in a team oriented, quality guided approach based on
the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM).
The Task Force provided the following:
The development of a vision, mission, plans,
and implementation strategies, which require
further development of policies, standards, and
designs.
Implementation of the infrastructure should be
accomplished with strict coordination between
the service providers and the end users to
minimize the impact of service interruption.
Policy and infrastructure alone, without
adequate applications to make use of the
infrastructure, could result in facilities that are
unused, inappropriate, or too expensive for
Arizona's needs. Coupling a drive for improved
infrastructure with concurrent development of
key strategic applications can ensure that the
desired benefits are achieved. Examples are:
- Distance learning
- Health service delivery
- Public safety
- State and local government networking
- Data-link to trade and commerce data
bases (intra and inter Statelcountry)
- Public access to State, County, and City
government
To meet the tactical and strategic objectives mandated
by the Stakeholders for improving the State's
information infrastructure, a Telecommunications
Strategy Planning project was formed with a Task
Force made up of both public and private participants.
The AZTEL 2000 Task Team, identified in the August
1993 Task Force meeting, provided the direction and
advice to participants, and acted as an oversight body
Encouraged partnerships between State
agencies, Cities, Counties, education K-12,
universities, community colleges, and the
private sector on the development of goals,
objectives, and strategies for the effective use of
communication technologies.
The procurement of project support services
systems, personnel, and facilities.
A needs assessment on the existing
telecommunication systems and the integration
with other state and local government systems,
and public-private partnerships.
The recognition of a "Best of Breed" from other
organizations addressing similar activities, and
the identification of emerging technologies as
they become available.
As with all major activities, there are issues and
considerations that must be addressed throughout the
life of the project. In the AZTEL 2000 project, we
identified several key issues, each with unique subtitles
that must be satisfied prior to the completion and final
implementation of Arizona's telecommunications
infrastructure. This document contains some of the key
issues that are currently being considered as part of the
implementation of the AZTEL 2000 initiative. Some
of these strategies can be implemented immediately,
while others may take years. The majority will be
somewhere in the middle.
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure 9
111. Current Environment
T his section addresses some of the problems we 2. A lack of commitment by government to make a
currently face in Arizona's existing statewide network a reality.
1 telecommunications environment.-This section
also contains a summary of the survey conducted by Commitment is critical to the success of any
the AZTEL 2000 committee, which was used to level of implementation of the AZTEL 2000
produce a snapshot of Arizona's current networking plan. Commitment from the leadership of the
environment so that an accurate analysis of Arizona's State, Counties, and Cities is essential to
future telecommunications reauirements could be guarantee the success of this project.
All of these factors demonstrate Arizona's need for
adopting a uniform approach to the application,
functionality, administration, and understanding of
telecommunications.
Key Issues
produced. 3. The lack of an effective finding plan for a
statewide network.
Problem Statement This implies a
Today, there are many issues that exist within State and
local government concerning Arizona's current and
future telecommunications requirements. The majority
of these issues deal with the reasons why Arizona's
State, County and City governments have not
aggressively embraced telecommunications as a viable
alternative for the uniform management of information
resources.
The AZTEL 2000 committee has identified the
following 10 major issues:
1. A lack of understanding of the need for a
statewide network.
- What is it?
- Who will use it?
- What will they use it for?
- How will it benefit my community?
Currently, there are a wide
variety of different networking
technologies operating within
Arizona's public and private
sectors, with the majority
functioning as independent
operators.
Duplication of costs, networking
administration, and resources is
common place. The AZTEL
2000 Task Force participants
have conservatively estimated
that the total annual expenditures
for telecommunications by all
State and local government
and security policies.
5. The lack of a single voice for the development
of a statewide network.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Redundant systems
Technical inconsistencies abounding
Duplicity ofdata and information
Limited integrated telecommunications
Inability to maintain or increase competitive edge
Business and organizational inconsistencies
This should include the public and private
sectors and the citizens, should be recognized
by all parties statewide, and should have
continuous, ongoing funding.
requirement for a
coordinated effort,
blending the need
for public and
private funding.
4. The lack of a
public and private
Information
Policy Board for
the development
of a statewide
networking policy.
This Board should
be appointed by
the Governor with
6. The lack of a single point of responsibility for a
statewide network.
agencies will be $100,000,000.00. the consent of the
The appointment of a full-time staff is needed
to refine and implement the AZTEL 2000
strategic plan for Arizona's telecommunication
infrastructure. Responsibility for this action
needs to be established by the Governor so that
many of the inter-agency issues can be
addressed and resolved by a permanent,
established point of responsibility.
Assessing the current state of State Legislature.
telecommunications in Arizona is a difficult task Membership should include public and private
because there is no existing infrastructure to support a users, developers, and providers whose main
universal base for networking applications, responsibility will be setting Arizona's
functionality, and understanding. telecommunications information infrastructure
'
7. The lack of a robust telecommunications
infrastructure to support statewide networking.
The major telecommunications infrastructure
provider is US West. They have publicly
declared that they are selling 10 of their central
offices because they are too costly to maintain.
State of Arizona
They have also declared that they are not
investing in Arizona at this time because their
annual return on investment is only 3 to 4 %.
The Arizona Corporation Commission and US
West do not agree on this assessment. Arizona
needs to have a robust infrastructure to
implement AZTEL 2000, so this impasse needs
to be resolved.
8. The lack of defined needs and applications for
private sector participation in a statewide
network.
What type of services would make the private
sector want to participate? There must be some
value added to the network provided by the
private sector.
9. The inability to reach all Arizona citizens.
The major issue in Washington on the National
Information Infrastructure initiative is the
ubiquitous access to the information
superhighway by all citizens (avoiding the
creation of information "haves" and "have
nots"). Unless this issue is addressed,
roadblocks will appear everywhere as we begin
to implement a telecommunications
infrastructure. Where will rural citizens access
services, from State-provided centers or from
their homes?
10. The lack of a single statewide utility.
Few agency or institution leaders understand
networking beyond the commonly used buzz
words. Leadership must be capable of living
beyond the next election. The Regional Bell
Operating Company (RBOC) influence is far
too strong, creating cited legislation. The State
needs a switching center where everyone can
meet, including the major telecommunications
carriers.
The AZTEL 2000 Information Survey
In an attempt to get a picture of both the current status
of networking within the State of Arizona and an idea
of Arizona's future telecommunications requirements,
the AZTEL 2000 committee conducted a survey of the
following public institutions:
State agencies
County governments
City governments
Libraries
Universities
Community colleges
K- 12 schools
Two survey documents were developed. The first
survey was designed to capture the current status of
networking within the State of Arizona. The results of
this survey are summarized in Table 2,3,4,5, and 6
in Appendix: AZTEL 2000 Survey Results.
The second part of the survey referenced future
network activity that was either planned or desired, and
the results of this survey are summarized in Table 1 in
section IV. Future Environment.
-
What the Survey Data Shows
Table 1 contains the results of the Futures
portion of the survey, which gives a good
indication of the kind of networking
applications the survey respondents would like
to purchase in the future. When asked why they
have not yet acquired one or more of these
applications, the majority of respondents
indicated a lack of funding as the major barrier
to expanding their current networks. Many of
the respondents also expressed a strong desire
to connect to the proposed Arizona
telecommunications network to reduce costs,
gain access to more applications, and
consolidate resource management
responsibilities.
Table 2 summarizes the resource surveys that
were distributed. Only 6.6% of the surveys
were returned due to a combination of various
factors, including the complexity of the survey
material, the time involved in researching the
survey questions, and the failure to perceive the
importance of the survey to the future of
Arizona. The lowest response rate came from
the K-12 schools because most of these schools
have no networking capabilities, which inhibits
their ability to exchange information and
educational materials with other learning
institutions. Currently, the quality and
availability of educational technologies is
proportionately tied to the tax base for most
rural areas. Providing these areas with access to
a cost effective, centrally managed
telecommunications network would go a long
way in eliminating this problem.
Table 3 contains a summary of the current
networking circuit capacity for the State. This
table shows that the vast majority of circuits
originate in the metropolitan Phoenix area,
while the rest of the State has little or no
networking capabilities. The main factors
driving this situation are a lack of available
funding and access to cost effective, centrally
managed telecommunications technology. This
is significant, because it illustrates the need for
a uniform statewide telecommunications
infrastructure that can serve the entire State.
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure
Table 4 is a list of the organizations that
responded to the surveys and is included in this
document to acknowledge their participation in
this effort.
Table 5 lists the network protocols used by the
respondents and the concerns they have
regarding their current networks. This table
shows that 18 different network protocols are
currently being used by the various respondents.
The divergence in protocols is a significant
illustration of the individual approaches to
resolving specific telecommunications
requirements. This approach may adequately
serve each individual organization, but it also
illustrates a redundancy in applications and
information resources and cost, and ignores the
concept of inter-network compatibility, data
exchange, and centralized, cost effective
resource management.
Table 6 is the heart of the data received in the
surveys. It lists the number and capacity of the
various circuits reported between locations in
the State. It also includes data on the current
funding levels that some agencies are devoting
to communications circuits. The significance of
the data contained in this table lies in the
individual monthly line and equipment costs.
These statistics show that the metropolitan areas
employ most of the technology and absorb most
of the administration and application costs,
while the rural areas are lagging far behind in
every category. The disparity in usage, access,
equipment, and costs illustrates Arizona's
current non-unified, non-centralized approach
to networking.
The Need for a Statewide Network
As we enter the information age and the trend of
having to do more with less continues, coupled with the
growing need for information, change is inevitable. As
NAFTA becomes a reality, we must exploit our
technological advantage to maintain our economic
competitiveness. The Federal National Information
Infrastructure (NII) initiative has heightened the
awareness of the citizens of Arizona toward the
potential value of access to information in our lives.
Avoiding the creation of two classes of citizens, the
information "haves" and "have nots", is critical. The
disappointing attitude of our primary common carrier's
willingness to invest in Arizona is obvious. The need
to do more resource sharing among State agencies
while avoiding duplication of effort is easy to see.
As State agencies embark for the first time on a
common State IRM Plan, the reduction of duplicated
services will be possible. As the State takes more steps
to reduce environmental pollution in the metropolitan
areas, the need for telecommuting and video to reduce
travel and improve the quality of life will become more
critical.
This section lists many reasons why the State needs to
establish a comprehensive program to provide equal
access to the information superhighway for the citizens
of Arizona. However, this is only a sampling of the
reasons to have a statewide telecommunications
program.
This network effort will become a reality only if a
significant commitment is made by the State, including
the Governor, the Legislature, the private industry, and
the individual citizen.
12 State of Arizorza
IV. Future Environment
T his section describes the results of the Futures The respondents to our survey referenced the features
survey conducted by the AZTEL 2000 addressed in this document, such as electronic
Committee on Arizona's future surveillance monitoring and screening, identification
telecommunications requirements. It also addresses technologies, and artificial intelligence as additions to
some of the ways Arizona can benefit from the the list of services they would like to have available in
implementation of a uniform statewide the future.
telecommunications network. In the fall of 1993. the State CIO Council vrevared a
Future Communications Requirements Strategic Plan for information Resource ~ a n a ~ e m e n t
(IRM) 1994-1999. This ~ l a cna lls for the creation of a
A review of the data reported in the statewid; information architecture and
Futures survey indicates that there is a addressed six goals, of which the
large demand for information second and third goals are:
technology services. One of the Provide universal access to
questions asked was what functionality statewide information, limited
do you plan to add in the next 12,24, only by privacy requirements.
and 48 months. There were 59
respondents that completed the Futures Provide optimum service
portion of the survey and their delivery to the agencies and the
responses are tabulated in Table 1. public.
All of the respondents stated their The passage of NAFTA is bringing
overall commitment to acquiring some additional demands for information
form of telecommunications infrastructure resources with the
technology. They expressed a key increased complexity of having to cross
interest in such applications as E- state boundaries and associated Local
MAIL, local area networks (LANs), Access Transport Area (LATA)
wide area networks (WANs), Imaging, restrictions, national boundaries, and a
and Teleconferencing. Interoperability, whole new class of political and
connection to the Internet, and access technical problems. In Arizona, the
to data were all stressed as important information superhighway is critical to
concepts that were driving their our plans for NAFTA. Just as the
telecommunications futures. The interstate highway system has played a
single most important inhibiting factor critical role in traditional commerce,
in determining the deployment of these the information superhighway will play
future services was budget, while the a major part in electronic commerce.
lack of technology was never considered a roadblock to The State of Arizona must ensure that it is not bypassed
progress. by the information superhighway as it is developed.
The functionality areas identified in the Futures survey Just as those communities that suffered, and in many
are very similar to those expressed in the Vision 2004 instances died, as a result of being bypassed by the
document prepared by the Arizona Judicial System in Interstate highway system in the past, Arizona also runs
June of 1993. the risk of being bypassed if it does not ensure
participation in the information superhighway plans for
the future.
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure 13
V. Restructuring Government With New Technology
U nderstanding the telecommunications plans and A practice that has placed an increased burden on
directions of the private sector and other telecommunications services is the trend toward
governmental entities is essential to enhancing distributed processing. This technology has resulted in
future compatibility with Arizona's strategic the placement of functionality at the desktop as
telecommunications infrastructure plan. The purpose opposed to a centralized computer facility. The
of this section is to identify the compelling issues of clientkerver model approach and use of relational
Federal, state, and local governments and their databases have made the desktop workstation
associated strategic directions. requirements increasingly significant with an increased
Citizens and business want more service and better demand for bandwidth.
results from their government. However, the costs of There has also been an increased emphasis on open
public programs are more than most citizens are willing systems in both Federal and state government. The
to pay. Information technology that delivers better idea behind open systems is to ensure interoperability
public services, while still covering its own costs, between multiple vendors and heterogeneous
should be considered an investment in the future. environments, which facilitates information exchange
By using technology to re-engineer and improve
government processes, the potential for saving time,
money, and other resources could be realized by
Federal, State (agencies and higher education
institutions) and local (counties, cities, schools, and
libraries) governments, the private sector, information
brokers, and citizens.
The current President's administration has taken a bold
step in establishing a National Information
Infrastructure (NII) that is designed to change the way
the American people communicate and do business.
The idea behind the digital superhighway is to link
universities, businesses, and private homes. The
telecommunications highway will link the nation's
burgeoning population of computers.
During the past four decades, the Federal government
has amassed a collection of research information in 650
separate laboratories. Now the administration wants to
make the information available to small and midsize
U.S. businesses in an ongoing exercise in technology
transfer to enable smaller companies to compete
globally.
State Government Experiences
As a result of Federal policy, it is apparent that state
governments are being asked to provide increased
services to their citizens without increasing spending.
Improving the utilization of state resources (human or
technological) is becoming critical in an environment
of increased emphasis on fiscal accountability.
The states have turned to Information Resource
Management (IRM) and, particularly, investment in
information technologies, as both a resource and tool
for providing better service. This trend reflects the
increasing importance on IRM and, specifically,
telecommunications as a strategic tool. States already
utilize extensive telecommunications resources in
different agencies and applications, ranging from
revenue collection and health and human services, to
law enforcement and the courts. It is through the use of
telecommunications that the states have been able to
bring services closer to their citizens.
"
and interoperability. This has resulted in a set of
specifications for open systems called Government
Open Systems Interconnection Profile (GOSIP), which
was mandated at the Federal level for acquisition of
information resources.
To accommodate the changes in computing, the
volume of data traffic is increasing at a rapid rate. It is
estimated that data traffic will surpass voice traffic by
the year 2000 as a result of new and advanced
applications. In a Federal GSA study released in mid-
1989, a six-fold increase in the government' s long-term
data communications requirements is projected by the
year 2000. This study projected agency intercity data
traffic rising from 46,000 to 159,000 gigabytes (billions
of characters) per month in 1995 for an average annual
growth rate of 23 percent.
Regulation Continues Zb Be An Issue
Regulation of some of the telecommunicationsSqervices
has continued to cause problems for the acquisition of
products and services to meet government
requirements. In the vendor provided proposals
received as a result of the AZTEL 2000 Request for
Information, most of the vendors identified regulation
as a barrier to future communications networking.
Budget Issues
State governments are spending about $20 billion per
year on information resources that are beginning to be
viewed as strategic assets. For most of the states
responding to a recent National Association of State
Information Resource Executives (NASIRE) survey,
the IRM budget represented about one to two percent
of the total state budget, with only two states exceeding
four percent. The average communications expenditure
is about 15.2 percent of the IRM budget, with the full
spectrum of expenditures ranging from a minimum of
2.6 to 38 percent. All states have taken steps to contain
expenditures in different ways. These steps include
acquisition and implementation of private networks,
purchase of station equipment as opposed to leasing,
and centralized planning, procurement, and design.
14 State of Arizona
The consolidation of various administrative functions,
while making the functionality available through
networking and telecommunications, also appears to be
high on the list for cost-control purposes.
Organization Structure
In some states, telecommunications responsibilities
have been fragmented among individual organizations.
As a result, multiple entities were involved in the
decision-making process, thus making overall
coordination from a state's perspective extremely
difficult.
Changes have been precipitated at the organizational
level to better respond to the present environment. A
large number of state governments have undergone
reorganization during the past three years for reasons of
increased efficiency, better policy coordination, and
cost containment. Information resource and
telecommunications are either part of the same
organization, or report to a larger entity to ensure
coordination at a policy level. To support this process,
a significant number of states have an IRM oversight
commission, and approximately three-fourths of the
states have a Chief Information Officer (CIO). Of the
states responding to the NASIRE survey, most have
dedicated organizations providing telecommunications
services.
There is a trend toward the integration of voice and
data functions within the organizations generally
involved with all aspects of the functional areas of
support, such as network operations and control, long-range
planning, network design, request for proposals
and bid preparation, and vendor selection.
Primary Telecommunications Issues
Faced with a slow and anemic economy, the states have
limited resources for providing telecommunications
services. This, coupled with additional constraints,
especially in the areas of funding for training and
personnel development, causes the states to look at
technologies having the biggest payoff in terms of
employee productivity.
One such area is office automation. Communication
tools, such as facsimile machines (FAX), electronic
mail (E-Mail), voice mail (V-Mail), and audio and
video teleconferencing systems have appeared in most
aspects of state government planning.
Despite all the issues, most states are looking forward
and have become involved in some innovative
activities to improve the services they provide. They
are trying to understand the business needsfirst and
then trying to apply technology to meet those
requirements. They also understand that technology
alone will not resolve the issues confronting them and,
to a great extent, may be the cause of the confusion,
fueled by different vendors promoting their own
--
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure
products as cure-alls. States need to take both a
coordinated view and a cohesive approach to ensure
that the different technologies, policies, and standards
fit together in a harmonious manner.
There are a number of telecommunications initiatives
being pursued by almost all states, including:
Interactive Voice Response - This technology
offers improved service and productivity in a cost
effective manner by allowing the citizens access to
data using their telephone while providing state
agencies with a means of collecting information.
The technology is presently being employed in
several states for applications such as automated
student registration, health and human service
information, drivers license and vehicle registration
information.
Telecommuting - Projects are being implemented
in several states on a pilot basis. Telecommuting is
being used extensively in California to improve
employee productivity and employee quality of
work-life after the recent earthquakes.
Kiosks - As a part of multimedia research and
development projects, states are investigating the
use of various forms of kiosk services to provide
the public access to state agency information.
Geographic Information System - This
technology, incorporating both image technology
and textual information, offers great potential for
the management of the environment, with
applications in management of natural resources
and transportation. This has tremendous
implications in terms of increased transmission
bandwidth requirements to the desktop.
Video teleconferencing - This technology holds
great promise for applications in several areas
within State government. These include a
reduction in travel in areas such as court systems
and hearings from correctional facilities.
Charge back strategies - States are adopting
charge back strategies for services considered
above and beyond the basic level of services
required by the average citizen. The states are also
looking into simple charge back mechanisms to bill
for those services and guarantee payment. One
such charge back mechanism under consideration is
a business partnership with the local telephone
operating company through the use of a 900-type
service.
Open access - Access to public information held by
government entities is a major issue when new
technologies are implemented. While there are
confidentiality concerns for some data, citizens
have a basic right of access to information held by
government.
VZ. Vision for Arizona's Future Communications Services
T his section describes the AZTEL 2000 vision for 3. The efficiency of government would be
Arizona's communications services and the increased as network connectivity among
benefits to the State of Arizona and its citizens agencies allowed faster and more accurate work
through the implementation of this vision. flow processes.
2&0 is represented in the
figure on the following page,
and as can be seen, is a radical
departure from today's
situation. The AZTEL 2000
project will foster the use of
telecommunications to
improve the efficiency of
government, education, and
The telecommunications 4. Access to
"Through cooperative eflorts, Arizona's
telecommunications infrastructure
provides the highest quality services and
accessibility to promote cost eflective,
eficient, accurate, and timely
information exchanges for public sector
users, business partners, and citizens."
environment envisioned
through the goals and
obiectives defined for AZTEL
-
medical care, and make these
services more available and a
government Vision Statement: would be
im~roveda s
th; capability
for businesses
and citizens to
obtain infor-mation
and
conduct busi-ness
over the
network
would be
provided.
affordable. The AZTEL 2000 role in the 5. Educational opportunities would be enhanced as
telecommunications future of Arizona as developed by schools and libraries throughout Arizona would
the AZTEL 2000 Task Force is contained in the vision be networked together and to other learning
and mission statements. centers
areas and provide access for citizens at public
facilities.
worldwide.
16 State of Arizona
Benefits:
The implementation of
AZTEL 2000 would provide
the modem technology base
necessary for Arizona to
participate in the information
age and be competitive by the
year 2000. Specific benefits
would be social as well as
economic and tangible as well
as intangible. Some of the
most important benefits are:
1. Money savings
Mission Statement:
"AZTEL 2000 will implement a statewide
telecommunications network with the capability of
supporting a wide range of services. The network
will be a cooperative partnership among government
entities at all levels, private business, and network
service providers. It will also have the capabilities
of providing an expanding range of services to
government, business, and the general public at an
affordable cost to the taxpayers of Arizona"
-
6. The basis for
improved,
lower cost
medical care
would be
provided as
networked
hospitals,
doctors, and
other primary
care providers
could do
improved
resulting from the diagnoses and
consolidation of more efficient
redundant networks and lower costs for new scheduling of patients. Training and public
services based on potential partnerships. health initiatives would be expanded and
supported at lower cost, and billing to insurers
2. Economic development in the State would could be done faster, more accurately, and with
increase with a modern, extensive, and less paper work.
competitively priced telecommunications
infrastructure to attract business and jobs. 7. The concept of universal access would be
enhanced as the network would reach rural
Arizona Information
Infrastructure Framework
L
Q
I 'Customer Benefits (Product)
Learning Videos What the Users
Electronic Commerce Learning Receive
Voice Conference
E-Mail Entertainment
Remote Computing Shopping 4nformrtlon servlc
File Access Documents Support & Training
Multi-media Information Bases
Forums
Special Interest Groups
The Users Media
Private and Public
The fisHlghway"
Sets Qround Rules
In the Publlc Interest
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure I7
VII. Organizational Structure
T his section describes the proposal drafted by the
AZTEL 2000 Task Force for the organizational
structure of Arizona's telecommunications
infrastructure. The model for this proposal was based
on the analyses performed by other states on the most
efficient ways to administer their telecommunications
resources.
The initial step in building the organizational structure
is to create an Information Infrastructure Policy Board,
as discussed below and represented in the
organizational chart following this section. The Board
would interact with a number of other key user
committees to help formulate and direct the
development of Arizona's telecommunications
infrastructure.
Responsibilities of the Information Infrastructure
Policy Board should include, but not be limited to:
1. Developing the Arizona Telecommunications
Master Plan through consultation with
telecommunications network customers and
with advice from the State Chief Information
Officer (CIO). The plan should provide for the
coordination of many different information
technologies to ensure that interoperability is
met.
2. Establishing telecommunications policies,
guidelines, and standards for management of
telecommunications transport services,
networks, and facilities.
3. Reviewing, assessing, and ensuring compliance
with Federal and State telecommunications
regulations governing the needs and functions
of network customers for telecommunications
transport services.
4. Advising the Governor and the State
Legislature on telecommunications matters.
5. Representing the needs and interests of
telecommunications customers in the
proceedings before the Arizona Corporation
Commission, the Federal communications
commission, and other governmental regulatory
agencies as appropriate.
6. Approving an annual operational budget and fee
structure.
7. Developing and submitting an annual report to
the Governor, State Legislature, and Director of
the Department Of Administration.
8. Establishing and promulgating rules and
regulations governing the use and funding of
the telecommunications services, equipment,
software, and networks associated with
Arizona's telecommunications infrastructure.
Responsibilities of the Service Provider User
Committee should include, but not be limited to:
1. Administering the approved Arizona
Telecommunications Master Plan and
coordinating the telecommunications transport
service network.
2. Reviewing all existing and future
telecommunications planning, networks,
systems, and programs to make
recommendations to the Information
Infrastructure Policy Board.
3. As appropriate, coordinating the acquisition of
compatible telecommunications equipment,
software, and licenses for telecommunications
transport service networks with all customers.
4. Coordinating telecommunications network
training.
5. Recommending the telecommunications fee
structure and budget to the Board and
administer approved budgets.
6. Implementing and monitoring all policies and
standards approved by the Board.
7. Functioning as an information clearing house,
ensuring that all participants have access to
information.
Responsibilities of all other User Committees should
include, but not be limited to:
1. Providing annual network requirements to the
Service Provider User Committee for planning
purposes.
2. Developing applications and programs
consistent with policies and standards adopted
by the Board.
3. Submitting recommended changes to policies
and standards to the Board.
The Information Infrastructure Policy Board should
consist of nine members appointed by the Governor
with the consent of the State Senate.
The Board members should be appointed to ensure a
broad and balanced representation of providers,
developers, and consumers of information technology.
The following is a suggested list of professional areas
from which representatives could be selected. This list
may be condensed or modified during the Board
selection process.
State, County, and City governments
Education
Human services
Business
Information processing technology
State of Arizona
Telecommunications chairman. The Board should also have a paid
Executive Director and an Administrative Assistant.
Finance
The Board will appoint subcommittees or establish
Commerce and trade working relationships with existing groups to ensure
Corporate management that members of the information community have a
forum to express their views. These committees should
Library and information sciences include at least one member of the Board to monitor
Marketing the proceedings and provide relevant information back
to the Board for decision making analysis.
Annual elections should be held among the Board
members to fill the positions of Chairman and Vice-
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure 19
VIII. The AZTEL 2000 Direction: Goals, Objectives, & Strategies
his section describes the goals, objectives, and Future) was the most succinct and useful in
Ts2trate0gies 0that m0ake. up the vision for AZTEL developing the Arizona plan and wish to thank
the Idaho staff for their contributions to our
efforts.
Part A. Development of Goals, 2. Vendor Responses to RFI
Objectives, and Strategies The AZTEL 2000 Task force also prepared and
issued a Request for Information (RFI) to the
1. Literature Review vendor community to identify strategies and
In order to develop a comprehensive set of obtain input for the goals and objectives
goals, objectives, and strategies for the Arizona developed by the committee. Each response was
project, the AZTEL 2000 Task Force reviewed summarized by task force members and used to
and analyzed a number of statewide plans, refine the strategies developed by the
studies, and reports from organizations engaged committee. The AZTEL 2000 Task Force
in similar activities (a) wishes to thank the
within other states, and (b) responding vendors
at the national level. Task for their creative
force members discussed input to this
the content of such plans process.
with representatives from
these states to clarify
3. AZTEL 2000
Task Force
information and identify Meetings
issues. This information
included, but was not In order to develop
limited to, materials the goals,
received from the states of objectives, and
Idaho, Texas, Georgia, strategies, the task
California, Kansas, New force members met
Mexico, Oregon, and on a weekly basis
Washington. from August, 1993
through April,
Information distributed at 1994 to volunteer
the national level, such as for and complete
publications, meeting task assignments,
notes, plan evaluations, discuss and resolve issues, compare and
and newspaper articles, were also reviewed and coordinate strategic initiatives and associated
analyzed for relevant content. These materials time frames, and gain consensus on the
were obtained from sources such as the materials presented in this strategic plan. In
National Telecommunications Information addition, the task force prepared an issue paper
Administration (NTIA), National Science regarding legal, funding, and legislative issues
Foundation (NSF), U.S. Department of with regard to the goals and objectives and
Commerce, National Governor's Association forwarded the paper to the Arizona state
(NGA), National Association of State Attorney General's Office and the Arizona
Telecommunications Directors (NASTD), and Corporation Commission for review and
the Gartner Group, as well as from newspapers opinion.
from across the country. In addition, relevant
materials produced within Arizona at various 4. Responsibilities for Strategies
levels of government (i.e., State, County, City) The AZTEL 2000 Task Force has yet to
and by telecommunications organizations (for identify the organizations that will be
example, AEITC, telecommunications carriers responsible for implementing the strategies
and service providers) were reviewed and identified in this document. In some cases,
analyzed prior to finalizing goals, objectives, existing organizations such as State and local
and strategies for Arizona's statewide effort. government agencies and educational entities
The Task Force met with representatives from will be assigned such responsibilities. In other
AEITC and GSPED to discuss strategic goals cases, new organizations such as the
and objectives to better meet the needs of the Information Infrastructure Policy Board will
constituents represented by these organizations. need to be established. This will require state
The AZTEL 2000 Task Force members felt that legislation, following discussions with public
the statewide plan received from the state of and private sector leaders on the organizational
Idaho (Telecomm '92: Connecting Idaho to the structure proposed in this document.
State of Arizona
Once this task has been completed, each
strategy will be updated to include the entity or
entities responsible for carrying out the strategy.
5. Refinement of Goals, Objectives, Strategies,
and Action Steps
The goals identified below have been
prioritized by the AZTEL 2000 Task Force and
are listed in prioritized order. However, since
the task force is primarily composed of
technical data processing staff from various
levels of Arizona government, the members
believe that the identified goals, objectives, and
strategies should be re-prioritized. The task
force recommends that this activity be
undertaken by the Information Infrastructure
Policy Board, following the establishment of
such a group, representing the diversity of
telecommunications interests across the State.
The strategies presented in this document
represent the combined efforts of the AZTEL
2000 Task Force members in identifying the
overall actions necessary to achieve the
objectives which they support. The task force
understands that additional strategies will be
developed, on an ongoing basis, to ensure a
comprehensive plan for project implementation.
This plan should be shared with various
organizations (for example, legislators,
government leaders, private industry,
telecommunications organizations, advocacy
groups, and citizens) to obtain input for
additional strategies and support for the plan,
prior to work plan development.
Following the adoption of this strategic plan,
action steps for each strategy will be developed
which delineate the detailed year by year tasks
and sub tasks necessary to complete each
strategy. This will form the basis for a detailed
project work plan which can be periodically
tracked to ensure that implementation tasks are
being completed on a timely basis. This
tracking process will also identify roadblocks,
as they occur, which can be resolved during the
actual implementation of the plan.
Part B. Integration of Goals,
Objectives, and Strategies
This section has been organized to present the overall
goals, followed by the objectives and strategies
necessary for their achievement.
Each of these objectives and strategies is linked to one
or more of the AZTEL 2000 goals. In this context, the
objectives and strategies can be thought of as major
steps in attaining these goals. They can also be thought
of as critical success factors required to accomplish the
goals and vision. The majority of the dates attached to
the strategies for each goal represent the proposed
target completion dates. All time periods are
represented in calendar years.
GOAL # 1
Use telecommunications to make government services
and information readily available.
Objective A:
Provide affordable telecommunications access to
government services.
Strategies:
1. 1997: Reduce the current cost of government
telecommunications through the provision of
centrally accessible network services.
2. 1997: Increase direct public access to
government services through the
implementation of various telecommunications
technologies.
3. 1999: Require governmental agencies to
provide access to on-line transactions that
identify services provided, requirements for
services, and service locations, based on the
geographical location of the individual, through
the use of commonly available technologies.
Objective B:
Provide citizen access to government through the
application of innovative telecommunications
technologies.
Strategies:
1. 1996: Enable citizens to electronically access
directories of State and local government office
locations and services through interactive
telephone and Kiosk technologies.
2. 1996: Distribute public information through
local television and radio broadcasting
companies.
3. 1996: Enable the public to electronically
access and retrieve public information from
government through FAX and electronic mail
(E-Mail) technologies.
4. 1999: Require government agencies to
implement automated systems that enable the
public to directly apply for services through the
use of commonly used automation technologies.
Every effort must be made to minimize the need
for the individual to travel to a service location.
Objective C:
Provide computerized and interactive voice access to
public information and services.
Strategies:
1. 1996: Enable the public to access all State
agencies using a common toll free (800)
telephone number.
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure
2. 1996: Enable the public to electronically Objective C:
access government services through voice mail
and interactive voice response technology to Coordinate public investment in telecommunications.
eliminate paper and expedite service delivery. Stratea"i es:
3. 2000: On an ongoing basis, implement
provisions for emerging technologies (for 1. 1995: Coordinate government
example, video teleconferencing) to facilitate telecommunications initiatives with State
greater citizen communications with economic development activities across public
government agencies. oerxgaamni~zalteiGo. nSsP (EfoDr
NOTE: See Goal # 5 for and ~EITC).
provisions of emergency
services. 2. 1996: Coordinate
public investment
GOAL #2 in telecommuni-v
Evaluate current and planned telecowmunication facilities cations networks
Use telecommunications to v Establish a strategic plan for a statewide telecommunicatwn and applications to
improve the efficiency and ensure a robust
statewide
eseffrevcictievse. ness government communications
environment at the
Objective A: v Develop a cost/benefl analysis. lowest possible
v Review and recommend funding alternatives.
Minimize public costs by cost.
aggregating telecommunications v Create an implementation plan.
services. v Develop andpresent report to the Governor. GOAL # 3
v' Develop and implement JZT training programs.
Strategies: Provide an information
environment consistent
1. 1998: Reduce the cost of with the public trust.
government services through the consolidation
of public telecommunications networks and
provisions for on-line information
clearinghouses.
2. 1999: Coordinate telecommunications network
activities among Arizona government agencies
with other states and the Federal government
using the Federal information superhighway to
reduce overall costs and expand access to
national and international information.
Objective B:
Establish a coordinating body to facilitate effective
utilization of the government system of
telecommunications.
Strategies:
1. 1995: Establish an Information Infrastructure
Policy Board to oversee network development,
implementation, and maintenance activities,
including access, utilization, fee setting, and
data linkages.
2. 1998: Implement service delivery effectiveness
improvements in the coverage, quality,
timeliness, and reliability of government
telecommunications networks through capacity
analysis and comparisons of network activities
and costs with the operations of other states.
Objective A:
Develop policy governing the privacy and sharing of
information, and ensure that this policy is continually
modified to cover new technologies and applications.
Strategies:
1. 1995: Establish a Security Committee to
oversee the statewide network with regard to
vulnerability identification, safeguard
protection and implementation, compliance
determinations, and enforcement standards.
This policy will be designed to facilitate
electronic access to public information through
appropriate security access levels.
2. 1995: Develop and implement policies and
related procedures governing the access and use
of information transmitted through Arizona's
telecommunications network.
3. 1996-2000: On an ongoing yearly basis,
accomplish periodic security reviews and risk
analyses, implementing appropriate corrective
actions when necessary.
Objective B:
Ensure information used throughout this
telecommunications environment has adequate
safeguards against unauthorized access.
22 State of Arizona
Strategies:
1. 1996: Review all proposals for access to the
statewide telecommunications network, as well
as those to provide services on the network, to
ensure compliance with applicable standards,
laws, and policies.
2. 1997: Ensure that all agencies providing
information services on the statewide
telecommunications network comply with the
established policies and procedures governing
access, use, and protection of information
through periodic security reviews and risk
analyses. In addition, document security abuses
and implement corrective actions as necessary.
GOAL # 4
Use telecommunications to improve the quality,
availability, and efficiency of Arizona education for
children and adults.
Objective A:
Provide lifelong learning opportunities to the citizenry
of Arizona through multiple access methods utilizing a
developed telecommunications infrastructure.
Strategies:
1. 1995: On an ongoing basis, develop and
promote educational opportunities which are
designed to introduce and instruct citizens on
the usage of telecommunications technology
through the universities, community colleges,
public libraries and government agencies.
These classes will range from elementary to
professional levels, and be geared to various
populations (elementary children to elderly
adults).
2. 1996: Implement demonstration projects for
lifelong learning programs through multiple
telecommunications technologies from public
broadcasting to on-line interactive educational
courses, such as video training.
Objective B:
Integrate telecommunications technology into the
preparation of Arizona's work force at elementary,
secondary, post-secondary, and continuing education
levels across the public and private sectors.
Strategies:
1. 1996: Publish materials on telecommuni-cations
objectives and issues for use in
developing curriculums by educational
institutions from primary through post
secondary levels. These materials should be
approved and distributed by an appropriate
State appointed commission and maintained
within a State information clearinghouse.
2. 1998: Provide educational governing boards at
the local through State levels, published
information for the development of
technologies for Arizona and the relationship of
those materials to education and the preparation
of a work force.
3. 1998: Implement programs for work force
preparation and worker retraining through
public and private partnerships utilizing
telecommunications technologies.
Objective C:
Provide telecommunications access to every
educational institution.
Strategies:
1. 1997: Implement programs for distance
learning activities which facilitate on-line
access to facilities such as instructional TV,
video conferences, and libraries through
universal Network Information Center (NIC)
service provisions.
1998: Provide educational institutions access
to available public and private sector
information databases using the statewide
telecommunications network, on a fee for usage
basis. This will occur through strategic
partnerships between educational institutions,
government, and private industry who
collaborate in the construction of new aspects of
the statewide telecommunications system.
3. 1999: Provide telecommunications access to
all classrooms and ensure interfaces to national
and international networks in order to create the
global schoolhouse.
GOAL # 5
Provide improved public safety and emergency care
services through modem telecommunications
technologies.
Objective A:
Provide enhanced statewide 91 1 service.
Strategy:
1996: Provide enhanced statewide 9 1 1 service
through appropriate local switching systems
with centralized dispatching and call routing
capabilities and associated voice response
technologies.
Objective B:
Provide a coordinated public safety radio network with
statewide coverage.
Strategic Plan for Arizona? Telecommunications Infrastructure
Strategies: Objective B:
1. 1997: Develop and implement a land mobile
public safety radio system to provide coverage
for areas of Arizona which are not addressed by
existing services.
2. 1998: Develop and implement a control
network that enables all public safety land
mobile radio systems in Arizona to interoperate.
3. 1999: Provide a comprehensive statewide
public safety radio network with mobile
telecommunications capabilities (for example,
cellular telephone and remote fingerprinting)
that facilitates seamless access by authorized
personnel.
Objective C:
Facilitate the use of electronic confinement.
Strategy:
1998: Continue to develop and implement an
electronic confinement system that incorporates
new and emerging electronic communications
methods.
GOAL # 6
Provide opportunities for improved economic well-being
for both rural and urban citizens.
Objective A:
Provide a wide and growing variety of infomation-based
services and transactions to all Arizonans using
multiple technologies.
Strategies:
1. 1996: Adopt policies that will stimulate
increased competition among
telecommunications carriers and service
providers to ensure a comprehensive statewide
telecommunications network to support State
economic development initiatives.
2. 1997: Implement a comprehensive program of
electronic commerce, including provisions for
telecomputing and other innovative projects,
through public and private partnerships and
cooperative strategies.
3. 1997: Implement special provisions for
network access and usage by persons with
disabilities (for example, special devices for
persons with hearing impairments).
4. 1997: Provide an incentive awards program
for innovative telecommunications projects
which expand network access for traditionally
hard to serve populations within the State, such
as Native American communities.
Provide a variety of quality telecommunications
services suitable to market Arizona as an attractive
location for business relocation and expansion.
Strategies:
1. 1997: Implement and expand demonstratiorl
projects which foster concurrent business and
work force expapsion.
2. 1997: Develop a catalog of
telecommunications services that are available
from the State telecommunications network that
are supportive of the business community.
3. 1998: Contract for a wide variety of affordable
telecommunications services based upon
economic development initiatives coordinated
by the Governors Strategic Partnership for
Economic Development (GSPED) that are
attractive to and supportive of the Arizona
business community
NOTE: See Goals #I and #2 for provisions to expand
telecommunications access to government.
GOAL # 7
Use telecommunications to support an integrated health
care system.
Objective A:
Use telecommunications to reduce health care costs and
enhance access to health care.
Strategies:
1. 1999: Require health care providers and
agencies to exchange medical records
electronically through a standardized data
exchange protocol on the statewide
telecommunications network.
2. 2000: Develop and implement the necessary
automated systems and network capabilities to
provide for the electronic exchange of health
care information for all users (for example,
public agencies, providers, other payers, and
citizens of Arizona), and to provide incentives
for eliminating paper based information
exchange methods.
Objective B:
Provide primary health care providers with
telecommunications access to a hierarchy of
specialized medical advice.
24 State of Arizona
Strategies:
1. 1997: Develop and implement the necessary
automated systems and network capabilities
through the statewide telecommunications
network to provide electronic access (on a fee
for access basis) to information contained
within medical libraries to all primary health
care providers and other interested parties.
2. 1997: Develop and implement a Rural Health
Care Assistance Program, in coordination with
State medical associations, which facilitates
access to urban medical specialists for
consultation through electronic information
exchange methods (for example,
teleconferencing) on the statewide
telecommunications network.
3. 1999: Develop and implement Distance
Learning certification programs for medical
paraprofessionals through the statewide
telecommunications network, which enable
participants to obtain the necessary credentials
to secure employment or maintain certification.
This program will include a tuition
reimbursement component which provides for
loan reductions in exchange for health care
service in rural areas.
Objective C:
Provide health care professionals with
telecommunications access to medical records.
Strategies:
1. 1998: Develop and implement the necessary
hardware and software applications and
network provisions, such as on-line patient
records and smart card technologies, to enable
health care professionals to diagnose and
monitor the health conditions of patients in
home based settings from office locations.
2. 1998: Establish broadband telecommuni-cations
links between medical facilities
throughout Arizona to implement the electronic
transmission of medical images (for example,
X-Ray, CAT, MRI, Ultrasound, and PET) or
diagnostic test data to facilitate remote medical
consultation.
GOAL # 8
Increase the technological awareness of Arizonans on
how to use telecommunications to match their needs.
Objective A:
Provide regional workshops and demonstration projects
to increase information technology awareness and
skills.
Strategies:
1. 1995: Develop and implement a statewide
telecommunications Public Relations and
Marketing (Communications) Plan.
2. 1996: Notify citizens of the availability of
telecommunications information and literature
through public radio and television broadcasting
entities, the local media, and educational
institutions.
3. 1997: Administer Technology Awareness and
Skills workshops in all Arizona counties and
rural cities (where feasible). Incorporate
ongoing workshops into statewide technology
training curriculum and schedules, based upon
demand.
Objective B:
Provide information to small business and assist them
in using telecommunications to increase their
competitiveness.
Strategies:
1. 1996: Provide small businesses opportunities to
observe and learn the different uses of available
technology through seminars and exhibits with
related telecommunications literature and
guides. State and local government agencies
will assist local community organizations to
accomplish these activities.
2. 1997: Coordinate with the Small Business
Administration and other public and private
groups to share information and implement
programs on the use of new and emerging
telecommunications technologies for the
Arizona small business community.
GOAL # 9
Maintain and improve affordable universal access to
basic telecommunications services.
Objective A:
Manage the costs of telecommunications and
telecomputing between all government agencies and
the public to do the following:
Control cost growth consistent with value.
Establish an interagency, single point-of-interface.
Establish a uniform cost of access within each
community of interest. This would include cost
effective management of networking between
the State, County, Cities, universities, schools,
business, and the public.
Establish a cost and a capacity forecasting
environment that the public and government
agencies can review and understand.
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure
Strategies: Strategy:
1. 1995: Prepare and adopt a network business
plan, including provisions for collecting
revenues, allocating expenses, and ensuring
equitable access by all Arizona citizens (parity
policy).
2. 1999: Enable the state's general population to
access government services through a
Government Point-of-Presence (GPOP)
technology configuration using a single data
server or a collection of data servers.
3. 1999: Route all interagency automation
services through GPOP and connectivity
corridors.
Objective B:
Establish a market for electronic access to Government
and Government data services that the private sector
can (1) identify, and (2) compete for private sector
provisioning.
Strategies:
1. 1996: Implement the network business plan to
allocate the revenues and expenses for usage
fees, usage reimbursements, and subscription
charges for government services.
2. 1996: Establish one (1) government service and
industry cluster as a pilot for partnering,
utilizing economic development initiatives and
funding. This will include a data base of
telephone andlor terminal address numbers.
Objective C:
Establish a unified information infrastructure
throughout the State in graduated phases between the
following entities:
The State and County seats.
The County seats and the municipal
corporations.
The County seats and the special districts.
The schools.
The libraries.
The public.
Commercial resellers.
Strategy:
1996: Grade the connectivity corridors,
GPOPs, and government application servers. In
addition, grade and classify the classes and
types of terminals.
Objective D:
Establish an information infrastructure that maintains
an open and competitive equipment and services
procurement environment.
1995: Implement a directorate of competitive
advocacy, including rules governing vendor
participation and public domain products.
Objective E:
Establish an information infrastructure attractive to the
technologically advanced businesses and industries
yhich reside in Arizona or who would consider
relocation to Arizona because of access to such a
facility.
Strategy:
1998: Implement virtual resource pools for
grants, language services, financial transactions
services, etc., based on existing Arizona
business profiles and future business relocation
profiles.
Objective F:
Establish an information infrastructure which would
advance our state educational and private sector
research facilities work, visibility, and stature in high
technology areas.
Strategy:
1999: Implen~enmt echanisms that leverage
low-duty cycle asset investments and reuse
synergistics for activities which would not
otherwise be cost justifiable.
GOAL # 10
Provide a telecommunications infrastructure which
integrates technologies and networks to maximize the
user's choice of information exchange.
Objective A.
Design a telecommunications highway for the
connectivity of Arizona citizens to information based
systems and networks.
Strategies:
1, 1996: Develop and implement telephonic and
computer based access methods (for example,
Internet, FAX, and Voice Response Units) to all
levels of government information, including
public education, based on the results of
customer needs assessments.
2. 1996: Complete the design of a statewide
network.
3. 1999: Complete a statewide telecommuni-cations
network utilizing multiple technologies
and access methods that interface with national
and international networks through network
hubs.
State of Arizona
Objective B:
Provide a network that is dynamic, upgradable, and
easy to use and access.
Strategies:
1. 1995: Establish an ongoing standards
committee or commission to review and publish
open standards (with provisions for maximum
connectivity) for the development of computer
telecommunications networks serving the
public sector.
2. 1997: Provide incentives to private carrier
organizations for upgrading networks which
serve hard to reach populations (for example,
Native American communities). This will
include provisions for upgrading systems to
intelligent networks.
Objective C:
Incorporate existing and emerging telecommunications
standards.
Strategies:
1. 1996: Ensure that the established standards
committee or commission adopts rules to
incorporate existing and emerging
telecommunications standards while
maintaining open system provisions for national
and international communications.
2. 1997: Adopt state IRM strategic network plans
and standards that are consistent with national
and international standards and that promote an
open systems environment.
Objective D:
Encourage research, development, and innovation in
telecommunications.
Strategy:
1995: On an ongoing basis, promote
collaborative efforts between educational,
government, and private entities to provide
incentives or rewards for research,
development, and innovation in
telecommunications. This will include the
utilization of local, State, and Federal grants to
support research, demonstration projects, and
technology transfers from other states.
NOTE: See Goal #2 for provisions to integrate public
networks to avoid unnecessary duplication.
GOAL # 11
Provide an economic environment allowing common
carrier telecommunication infrastructures to serve
government needs.
Objective A:
Encourage systematic private investment in common
carrier infrastructures to meet Arizona's dynamic needs.
Strategies:
1. 1994: Identify regulatory and legislative
roadblocks limiting the common carrier's ability
to build infrastructures capable of supporting
Arizona's telecommunications networks.
2. 1995: Draft legislative or regulatory changes to
create an economic environment encouraging
common carrier construction of infrastructure to
support Arizona's networks.
3. 1995: Establish provisions for private
investments in common carrier telecommuni-cations
infrastructures which serve government
needs. This will include an analysis of
outsourcing and privatization of government
networks, as well as a statewide owned
government network.
Objective B:
Encourage partnerships between government
information users and information suppliers to take full
advantage of the capabilities and resources of both.
Strategies:
1. 1994: Identify regulatory and legislative
roadblocks that limit private and public
partnerships from developing a I
telecommunications network to take advantage
of a common carrier's infrastructure.
2. 1995: Draft legislative and regulatory changes
to create an economic environment encouraging
private and public partnerships to develop
networks.
3. 1998: Adopt provisions for partnerships
between public and private organizations on
projects designed to demonstrate innovative
approaches to implementing robust open
systems and internal data telecommunications
networks.
Objective C:
Avoid unnecessary redundancies in telecommunications
infrastructures.
Strategies:
1. 1994: Survey and identify those networks and
services that could be combined without
compromising security or stability of services
and networks.
2. 1996: Provide a pilot incentive program for
network integration projects that eliminate
unnecessary network redundancies and
maximize a return on investment for users.
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure
Part C. Progress Measurements and
Feedback Mechanisms
The next key step in the development and
implementation of an integrated AZTEL 2000
work plan will be the development of measurable
benchmarks to track the completion of the
strategies for achieving the objectives and goals.
The following are examples of the quantifiable
benchmarks that could be established.
GOAL # 1
GOAL # 3
The status of the Security Committee and the
existence and usage of security policies and
procedures, and the level of the Board's facilitation
of public access to non confidential data.
The existence and operation of periodic security
reviews and risk analyses for determining
compliance levels for privacy and access to
information, In addition, the status of corrective
actions to implement safeguards for identified
vulnerabilities.
The cost of government telecommunications
networks operating throughout the State and the
degree of centralized accessibility to such
networks.
The cost of electronic access to government
services for citizens and the availability of access
points throughout the State.
The degree of electronic access to government
services, and the extent of existing
telecommunications technologies being utilized (for
example, kiosks, voice response units, audio text,
and FAX). In addition, the degree to which citizens
can apply for and receive government services
without physically traveling to office locations.
The existence and degree of distribution of
government directories of locations and
electronically provided services. The degree of
utilization of existing automation technologies
available for access.
The level of citizen (customer) satisfaction with
electronic access to government services.
The usage level of toll free (800) access to State
agencies.
-
GOAL #2
The status of the Information Infrastructure Policy
Board, telecommunications governance statutes and
regulations, and the interrelationship of the State
IRM organization. In addition, the level of
coordination in facilitating telecommunications
initiatives with economic development activities
throughout the State.
The degree of unnecessary redundancy in
government telecommunications networks and the
extent of on-line information clearinghouses. In
addition, the extent of coverage, quality, timeliness,
and reliability of government networks.
The extent of access to national and international
information networks through the State
telecommunications infrastructure.
GOAL # 4
The existence and utilization of statewide
educational programs on the use of
telecommunications technologies for citizens.
The content and usage of educational databases for
lifelong learning programs. In addition, the extent
of electronic access to public sector information.
The degree of integration of telecommunications
materials and programs within educational
curriculums throughout the State, and for the
telecommunications infrastructure work force
initiatives and the availability of information
clearinghouses.
The existence and utilization of worker retraining
programs utilizing telecommunications
technologies.
The existence and utilization of distance learning
programs through on-line access to instructional
applications such as TV, video conferences, and
libraries.
The percentage of classrooms connected to the two-way
telecommunications network and the degree of
interface with national and international networks.
GOAL # 5
The extent of geographic coverage of enhanced
emergency (9 1 1) service and the diversity of
technologies utilized.
The extent of geographic coverage of wireless and
mobile communications within areas not addressed
by existing services.
The degree to which control networks enable
mobile radio systems, across public safety
organizations, to interoperate with seamless access
provisions and the extent of their utilization.
The existence and usage of electronic confinement
systems and the level of existing technology
utilized.
The level of public investment in networks and
applications to develop a robust statewide
environment.
State of Arizona
GOAL # 6
information with, and providing monitoring
programs for, small businesses.
The existence and utilization of a comprehensive
statewide telecommunications network and the
number and quality of information services
provided throughout the network.
The existence and utilization of electronic
commerce programs, including the extent of
telecommuting programs.
The extent to which network access and usage
provisions address the needs of special population
groups (for example, disabled, hearing impaired,
and Native American communities).
The extent to which telecommunications services
support the Arizona business community and work
force expansion, as well as the relocation of new
businesses to Arizona.
GOAL # 7
The extent to which health care providers and
agencies electronically exchange medical records
and the cost of related telecommunications.
The extent to which health care professionals utilize
telecommunications to access information
contained within medical libraries.
The existence and usage of distance learning
certification programs for medical professionals
and the number of program graduates by
professional specialization category.
The existence and usage of Rural Health Care
Assistance programs that facilitate remote medical
consultation, and the degree of access and coverage
of network services.
* The existence, coverage, and usage of home based
patient monitoring and medical images
transmission technologies (for example, X-RAY,
CAT, MRI, Ultrasound, and PET) by the medical
community.
GOAL # 8 - The existence and effectiveness of a statewide
telecommunications Public Relations and
Marketing (Communications) Plan and the extent to
which public and local broadcasts inform the public
of telecommunications information.
The number and quality of Technology Awareness
and Skills workshops by geographical area, and the
degree of integration of these workshops with
telecommunications technology training
curriculums (where appropriate).
The number and quality of telecommunications
technology seminars and exhibits provided for
small businesses by local communities. In addition,
the level of coordination with the Small Business
Administration and other relevant groups in sharing
new and emerging telecommunications technology
GOAL # 9
Status of a network business plan for collecting
revenues, allocating expenses, and ensuring
equitable access to telecommunications services.
A measurement of the cost of basic
telecommunications in Arizona as compared to
national averages. In addition, the percentage of
citizens with access to basic telecommunications
services within their local communities.
The level of access provided to government
services through a Government Point-of-Presence
(GPOP) technology configuration and connectivity
corridors.
The availability and utilization of virtual resource
pools for grants, language services, and financial
transaction services for Arizona businesses.
GOAL # 10
A measurement of level of connectivity by Arizona
citizens, including traditionally hard to reach
populations (for example, Native American
communities and geographically remote
communities) to the State's information
infrastructure, including national and international
telecommunications networks.
The extent of telephonic and computer based access
methods for accessing government information
within agencies, as compared to customer survey
needs assessments.
The status of policy for open systems standards and
related IRM strategic network plans, with
provisions for maximum connectivity, for State
telecommunications networks.
The extent of partnering efforts between
government, education, and the private sector in
providing incentives for research and innovative
development projects in telecommunications.
GOAL # 11
The status of legislation and regulatory policy
which encourages public and private partnerships
for common carrier construction of a network
infrastructure that supports identified needs.
The extent of private investment in the
telecommunications network architecture that
serves government needs.
The existence and extent of public and private
partnerships for projects that demonstrate
innovative approaches to implementing robust open
systems and inter-LATA networks.
The extent of unnecessary redundant
telecommunications networks throughout the state.
- -
Strategic Plan for Arizona? Telecommunications Infrastructure
As previously mentioned, these benchmarks are only In addition, the task force has developed a
examples. The process of selecting benchmarks is not comprehensive set of goals, objectives, and related
a trivial one. A process that leads to a consensus strategies for incorporation into this report through
among key individuals and organizations concerning weekly meetings, drawing upon expertise from
such quantifiable measures should be developed and multiple levels of government, and through
implemented to establish agreed upon measurement information provided by the vendor community using
techniques and gauge progress toward the achievement the request for information (RFI) process. The task
of each strategy and objective adopted. force has also proposed a number of examples that
could be used for bench marking progress toward the
Once such benchmarks have been adopted, current
baseline data for
fulfillment of the
proposed
each of the objectives
proposed through
measurements
should be
measurable
strategies.
determined,
because we need Meeting the
to know where we benchmarks that
are now in order are eventually
to gauge the level adopted will
of progress we are definitely be a
making during challenge for the
any specified time State.
period. Once The ongoing
baseline data is monitoring
obtained for each process should
adopted include the
benchmark periodic measure-measurement,
the ment of perform-proposed
ance against the
strategies and benchmarks and a
related action readjustment of
steps can be the implemen-updated
with more tation strategies
realistic dates for proposed within
achievement. this document. In
Part D. some cases, the
measurement
Summary process will
suggest that the
The AZTEL inzkl target
2000 Task Force has spent considerable time benchmarks adopted were unrealistic or inappropriate.
performing a literature review of existing and planned When this occurs, the benchmarks themselves should
telecommunications initiatives, state plans, and be adjusted.
projects being undertaken throughout the nation.
30 State of Arizona
IX. AZTEL 2000 Implementatzon Plan
T his section contains an overview of a five year * Establish a Information Infrastructure Policy
implementation plan of the major activities Board to oversee network development,
required to design and implement the statewide implementation, and maintenance activities.
telecommunications network envisioned by the AZTEL
2000 Task Force committee. Establish a Security Committee and establish a
network securitv volicv. . A < The list of activities following each year contains the
major strategies to be accomplished. All time periods Develop policies for governing the access and
are represented in calendar years. The network design use of information transmitted through the
and installation will be an evolving vrocess. so not all network.
customers will have service at the<ime time, and not * Coordinate government telecommunications
all applications will be available at the same time. See initiatives with State economic development
section VIII. The AZTEL 2000 Direction: Goals, acti\~ities.
Objectives, & Strategies for a detailed description of
the strategies contained in this section.
1994 - Telecommunications Study and
Evaluation
Submit the required legislation to the 1995 State
Legislature session.
Complete the NAFTA study identified in
Arizona State Legislature House Bill 2190.
Activities for 1994 will focus Develop a
on developing key strategies network
and year-by-year action steps business plan
during the initial study period. that includes
provisions for
Major Activities for 1994: collecting
Publish the revenues,
Telecommunications Organizational Year allocating
Strategic Plan. expenses, and Design b Build the Network ensuring
Submit a grant request Implement Network G. equitable
to the National access.
Telecommunications
Information Expand the Network E* Adopt
Administration Applications Base network
(NTIA). Improve Network Monitoring a standards that
are consistent
Prepare enabling Fine Tune b Enhance Ne with national
legislation for the and
AZTEL 2000 Task international
Force and governing standards.
board for the 1995 State Legislature session. * Develop a five year funding plan and submit a
Survey and identity required customer network budget request to the Office of Strategic
services, and identity those that can be Planning and Budget (OSPB) for the 199511996
combined. Complete a survey and compile data State Legislature session.
on applications and services that will be
available on the network. * Adopt policies that will stimulate increased
competition between telecommunications
Identify and submit recommended carriers and service providers.
communications regulatory rule changes.
1996 - Design and Build the Network
1995 - Organizational Year
Activities for 1996 will focus on using the information
Activities for 1995 will focus on the naming of complied during studies accomplished in 1994 and
organizational entities responsible for implementing the 1995 to provide the necessary foundation for designing
strategies and establishing the policies and and building the network
authorization needed to design the network.
Major Activities for 1996:
Major Activities for 1995:
Design the network based on customer
Develop and implement a statewide requirements that have been gathered.
telecommunications public relations and
marketing plan. * Implement a network business plan to allocate
the revenues and expenses.
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure 31
Enable the public to electronically access and
retrieve public information from government
through FAX and electronic mail (E-Mail)
technologies.
Develop and implement an 800 number system,
voice mail (V-MAIL), and a directory of
government services for public access.
Coordinate public investment in
telecommunications networks and applications.
Draft and submit the legislative and regulatory
changes necessary to implement the designed
network.
Develop and promote education and training in
the use of telecommunications technology for
small business and citizens using various media.
1997 - Implement Network and Pilot Projects
Activities for 1997 will focus on the implementation of
the network through the installation of fully operational
applications and pilot projects.
Major Activities for 1997:
Provide access methods to all levels of
government information and public education
based on the results from customer needs
assessments.
Develop and implement a land mobile public
safety radio system to provide coverage for
areas of Arizona that are not addressed by
existing services.
Implement a comprehensive program for
electronic commerce, including provisions for
telecommuting and other innovative projects.
Provide access to medical libraries and medical
specialists through electronic information
exchange methods.
Implement special provisions for network
access and usage by disabled individuals.
Provide training and assistance to small
business and rural citizens in the use of
technology for accessing information on the
network.
Provide a pilot incentive program for
networking integration projects that eliminate
network redundancies.
1998 - Expand the Network and Application
Base
Activities for 1998 will focus on network expansion
and installation of new applications.
Major Activities for 1998:
Continue to monitor and reduce network unit
costs.
Develop and implement a control network that
enables all public safety land mobile radio
systems in Arizona to interoperate.
Develop and implement an electronic
confinement system that incorporates new and
emerging electronic communications methods.
Contract for a wide variety of affordable
telecommunications services that are attractive
to the Arizona business community.
Add additional resources to enable health care
professionals to diagnose and monitor health
conditions of patients in the home or office.
1999 - Improve Network Monitoring and
Performance
Activities for 1999 will focus on a process of continued
network monitoring and the implementation of
applications and methods for improving network
performance.
Major Activities for 1999:
Require governmental agencies to provide
access to on-line transactions that identify
services provided.
Require government agencies to implement
automated systems that enable the public to
directly apply for services through the use of
common technologies.
Expand access to national and international
information for network customers.
Provide telecommunications services to all
classrooms. These services should include
access to international networks to create the
global school.
Improve the statewide public safety radio
network with mobile telecommunications
capabilities.
Require health care providers and government
agencies to exchange medical records
electronically.
Develop and implement distance learning
certification programs from medical
paraprofessionals through the statewide
telecommunications network.
32 State of Arizona
2000 - Fine-tune and Enhance Network Major Activities for 2000:
Operations
Activities for the year 2000
technologies to the network
On a continual basis, implement provisions for
emerging technologies to enhance citizen
will focus on adding new communication capabilities with government
as they become available. agencies
Perform periodic security reviews and risk
analyses and implement appropriate corrective
actions.
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure 33
Appendix: AZTEL 2000 Survey Results
34 State of Arizona
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
Cottonwood Public Library
Tucson-Pima Library
Yarnell Public Lihrary
Maricopa Community Center & Library
UNIV.
UNIV.
UNIV.
Northern Anzona University
University of Arizona
VideoServices, University of Arizona
State of Arizona
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure 37
38 State of Arizona
Strategic Plan for An'zonaS Telecommunicarions Infrastructure 39
40 State of Arizona
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunicationr Infrastructure 41
Glossary
AEITC Arizona State Lottery Commission
Arizona Educational and Informational
Telecommunications Cooperative
An organization dedicated to encouraging and
advancing cooperative planning, development,
and implementation of educational and
informational telecommunications in the State
of Arizona.
AHCCCS
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment
System.
ANSI
American National Standards Institute.
AppleTalk Remote Access
An Apple local area network (LAN) protocol.
This application supports Apple's proprietary
LocalTalk access method as well as Ethernet
and Token Ring. This application is built into
all Macintosh personal computers and
LaserWriters.
Architecture
The logical structure and operating principles of
a computer or computer network, including the
interrelationships of its hardware and software
components. (See also Open Systems
Architecture).
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
The Arizona Department of Transportation has
jurisdiction over State highways, other State
roads, State airports and all State-owned
transportation systems. The department is
statutorily organized into six divisions: Motor
vehicle, transportation planning, highways,
aeronautics, public transit, and administrative
services.
Arizona Game and Fish Department
The Arizona Game and Fish Department
manages Arizona wildlife populations through
the operation of hunting and fishing license
programs, enforcement actions for the unlawful
taking of game, and wildlife habitat protection
and development. The department is also
responsible for water craft registration and
boater safety programs. A five-member board
appointed by the Governor oversees department
operations and provides policy direction for the
director. Other functions of the department
include the operation of fish hatcheries,
conducting the annual lottery draw for hunting
tags, and implementing the off-highway vehicle
program.
The Arizona State Lottery is currently
responsible for the administration of three
State-sanctioned games of chance: The Lotto,
Fantasy Five, and instant tickets. Lottery sales
generate revenues for the Economic
Development Commission, the Local
Transportation Assistance Fund, the County
Assistance Fund, the Heritage Fund, and the
General Fund. A portion of the unclaimed
prizes support the Court Appointed Special
Advance (CASA) program.
ASCII
American National Standard Code for
Information Interchange.
The standard, and predominant, seven-bit (eight
bits, with parity) character code used for data
communications and data processing.
ASPED
Arizona Strategic Partnership for Economic
Development
Currently known as GSPED (see GSPED).
Asynchronous
Pertaining to a mode of data communications
that provides a variable time interval between
characters during transmission.
Asynchronous PPP
Point-to-Point Protocol
Asynchronous SLIP
Serial Line Internet Protocol
Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM)
A high-speed network technology for local and
wide area networks that handles data and real-time
voice and video. When implemented by
the telephone companies, ATM provides
"bandwidth on demand" by charging customers
for the amount of data they send rather than for
fixed-cost digital lines that are often
underutilized.
AZTEL 2000 Task Force
The Telecommunications Task Force for the
year 2000. An organization created in 1993 to
address statewide telecommunications issues.
Basic Input Output/System (BIOS)
In some operating systems, the part of the
system that customizes it to a specific
computer.
Community Antenna Television (CATV)
Also known as cable TV.
42 State of Arizoi~a
Chief Information Officer (CIO)
The top-ranking individual within an enterprise
(State, agency, board, commission, etc.)
responsible for tactical IRM requirements.
CIO Council
A body of major State agency CIOs chaired by
the State CIO. This organization is chartered to
"...create a common technology environment
needed to support and run the Information
Systems of the State of Arizona at the highest
quality and in the most cost-effective manner ..."
Circuits
Generally referring to a transmission medium
connecting two or more electronic devices.
Client/Server processing shares processing
between an intelligent user device (client), and
a device that multiple devices share (server).
The server may be a general-purpose computer,
or it may be a specialized device such as a
printer, image-storage unit, or a database
machine.
Connectivity
The capability of a system or device to be
attached to other systems or devices without
modifications.
Corporation Commission
The Arizona Corporation Commission was
established by Article 15 of the Arizona
Constitution and consists of three statewide
elected Commissioners, each serving six-year
terms. The commission's primary
responsibilities include the review and
establishment of public utility rates, regulating
the sale of securities in Arizona and
administering the Arizona Corporation Code.
As part of its responsibilities related to
corporations, the commission serves as the
repository of corporate annual reports and other
documents filed by corporations in accordance
with State law.
DECnet
Digital Equipment Corporation Network
A communications architecture and series of
related hardware and software products from
Digital Equipment Corporation. DECnet
supports both Ethernet-style LANs and wide
area networks (WANs) using broad-based and
broadband, private andlor public
communications channels.
Decision Support System (DSS)
An information and planning system that
provides the ability to interrogate computers on
an ad hoc basis, analyze information and predict
the impact of decisions before they are made.
Department of Administration (DOA)
The Department of Administration provides
general support services to all agencies,
including accounting and financial services,
personnel, building and grounds maintenance,
purchasing, risk management, automated
technology planning and operation, and
telecommunications.
Department of Corrections (DOC)
The Department of Corrections maintains and
administers a statewide system of prisons for
the effective custody, control, correction,
treatment, and rehabilitation of all adult
offenders legally committed to the department.
Educational and treatment programs are
provided for offenders so they will have
opportunities to learn more responsible
behaviors and increase their chance of returning
to society as law abiding citizens. The
department is also responsible for the
supervision of offenders on parole or other
prison release mechanisms, as specified by law.
Department of Economic Security (DES)
The Department of Economic Security provides
an array of services for low income households
and others in need. These services are provided
through the following divisions:
Developmental Disabilities, Benefits and
Medical Eligibility, Aging and Community
Services, Children and Family Services, Child
Support Enforcement, and Employment and
Rehabilitative Services.
Department of Education
The Department of Education is headed by the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, an elected
constitutional officer. The department oversees
227 school districts in their provision of public
education from preschool through 12th grade.
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure 43
- -- - --
Department of Environmental Quality
The Department of Environmental Quality's
purpose is to protect human health and the
environment by enforcing standards of quality
for Arizona's air, water, and land. The
department's Office of Air Quality issues
permits to regulate industrial air pollution
sources, regulates vehicle emissions, monitors
and assesses the ambient air, and develops air
quality improvement strategies. The Office of
Waste Programs implements programs to
minimize waste generation, identifies and
corrects improper waste management practices,
and oversees the clean up (remediation) of
hazardous waste sites. The Office of Water
Quality regulates drinking water and waste
water systems, monitors and assesses waters of
the State, and provides hydrologic analysis
hazardous site remediation.
Department of Health Services (DHS)
The Department of Health Services is
responsible for the provision of most public
health programs not administered by AHCCCS,
most behavioral health programs, emergency
medical services, State laboratory support, vital
records maintenance, disease control, and
epidemiological monitoring.
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
The Department of Public Safety is responsible
for the enforcement of State laws and traffic
regulations. In addition to the Highway Patrol,
DPS operates and maintains statewide
communications systems, State crime
laboratories and an automated fingerprint
identification network. It also performs
aviation missions, special investigations, and
other law enforcement activities.
Department of Revenue (DOR)
The Department of Revenue administers and
enforces the collection of personal and
corporate income, sales, withholding, luxury
and estate taxes. The department administers
State property tax laws through the 15 county
assessors. The department does not collect
transportation-related fees or taxes, or the
insurance premium tax. The department is
organized along functional lines.
Department of Water Resources (DWR)
The Department of Water Resources
administers and enforces Arizona's ground
water code, administers surface water rights
law, and represents Arizona's water rights with
the Federal government. These activities are to
ensure a long-term dependable water supply in
the State.
The department also inspects dams and
participates in flood control planning to prevent
property damage, personal injury, and loss of
life. In support of these activities, it collects
and analyzes base data on water levels and on
water-quality characteristics.
Department of Youth Treatment and Rehabilitation
The Administration program encompasses the
Director's Office, all business functions, data
processing, training and all other centralized
operations of the department. The Secure Care
program includes all costs associated with
youth in State-operated facilities with the
exception of educational services. The program
includes health care, diagnostic, treatment,
security, maintenance and other costs. The
department currently operates three facilities:
Adobe Mountain School, Black Canyon School,
and Catalina Mountain School.
Electronic Mail (E-Mail)
A term that usually means electronic text mail.
Currently, E-Mail refers to anything from
simple messages flowing through a LAN from
one workstation to another, to messages being
transmitted across the globe. Such messages
may be simple text messages or they may be
complex messages containing embedded voice
messages, spreadsheets, or images.
Executive Information System (EIS)
An information system that consolidates and
summarizes ongoing transactions within an
organization. It provides management with all
the information from internal and extemal
sources, which it requires at all times.
Fiber Distributed Data Interface (FDDI)
This application is an ANSI-standard, high-speed
LAN that uses optical fiber cable and
transmits at 100 Mbitslsec up to 62 miles.
Frame Relay
A transmission frame consisting of beginning
and ending flag characters, an address field, a
control field, and an information field.
Geographic Information System (GIs)
A system that displays informational data In a
geographic context. This application is used for
exploration, demographics, dispatching, and
tracking.
GPOP
Government Point of Presence.
44 State of Arizona
GSPED Local Area Transport (LAT)
Governor's Strategic Partnership for
Economic Development
Formerly ASPED. A partnership of Arizona's
leading economic development organizations:
Arizona Economic Council, Greater Phoenix
Economic Council, Greater Tucson Economic
Council, Enterprise Network, and Arizona
Department of Commerce, created to develop
strategies to move Arizona toward prosperity in
the 1990s.
Imaging
A method of processing, storing, using, and
transferring pictorial information by a computer
system.
Information Services Division (ISD)
A division of the Department of Administration
charged with: (1) the administration of internal
DOA automation and telecommunications
support, (2) strategic State automation and
telecommunications planning and control, (3)
functioning as an automation provider for other
State agencies, and (4) administration of the
State 91 1 program.
Infrastructure
A substructure or underlying foundation,
especially, the basic installations and facilities
on which the continuance and growth of an
entity, such as a communications or computer
system, depend.
Information Resource Management (IRM) Plan
IRM is a "top-down" approach to defining the
information needs of an enterprise and
examining all the resources required to provide
that information. IRM is a strategic resource
management function within the organization
and the basic management function for
providing organizational effectiveness and
productivity through information availability.
International Organization for
Standardization.
Kiosks
A small, self standing structure or device that is
used to dispense public information.
Local Area Network (LAN)
A communication network used by a single
organization over a limited distance which
permits users to share information and
resources.
A networking product for mini- and micro-computers
developed by Digital Equipment
Corporation that can also support non-DEC
equipment.
Methodology
A fully developed and documented orderly
process to assist in producing compatible
components for an information resource
architecture such as a database design,
application, or communications development.
Millions of Instructions Per Second (MIPS)
A long-standing measurement of relative
computer processing power. It is only one of a
number of hardware performance
measurements and is used only for gross
comparisons.
Mission Statement
A statement that describes the nature and
concept of the enterprise's purpose. Its
principal application is as an internal guide for
making all major decisions.
NAFTA
North American Free Trade Agreement
NASIS
National Association of State Information
Systems
Currently known as NASIRE.
NASIRE
National Association of State Information
Resource Executives
Formerly NASIS. A national organization
consisting of the CIOs from the state
governments, plus representation from the
Canadian provinces.
Native Application System/4OO (ASl400)
An IBM mini-computer series introduced in
1988 that supersedes and advances IBM
system136 and system138 computers.
NII Initiative
National Information Infrastructure
NTIA
National Telecommunications Information
Administration
Objectives
Statements of expected or anticipated results or
outcomes for the purposes of this planning
process.
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure
Office for Excellence in Government (OEG)
The Governor's Office for Excellence in
Government is responsible for the
administration and coordination of agency-driven
quality and productivity enhancement
initiatives; administration of the Institute for
Excellence in Government, which develops
Total Quality Management curriculums, trains
agency management and employees in TQM
principals and practices and provides career
development services; and administration of an
annual Governor's Award Program, which
recognizes and promotes excellence in
government.
On-line
Normally refers to the remote access of
mainframe application information by end users
through communications lines and terminals.
Open Systems Architecture
A model that represents a network as a
hierarchical structure of layers of functions;
each layer provides a set of functions that can
be accessed and that can be used by the layer
above it.
Office of Strategic Planning and Budget (OSPB)
The Governor's staff devoted to State strategic
planning and the executive budget development
process.
The method of capturing data at the time and
place of sale. Point-of-sale systems use
personal computers or specialized terminals that
are combined with cash registers, optical
scanners for reading product tags, andlor
magnetic stripe readers for reading credit cards.
RBOC
Regional Bell Operating Company.
Request for Information (RFI)
A formal process decreed in State purchasing
statutes to allow State management to request
information from vendors for a given set of
requirements, without a commitment of
contract.
Request for Proposals (RFP)
A formal process decreed in State purchasing
statutes for procuring goods and services whose
costs exceed a given amount.
Synchronous Data Link Control (SDLC)
The primary data link protocol used in IBM's
SNA (system network architecture)
communications networks. SDLC is a bit-oriented,
synchronous protocol, which is similar
to the international HDLC protocol.
SLIM
State Long-Term Improvement In
Management
Smart Card
A credit card with a built-in microprocessor and
memory that can be used as an identification or
financial transaction card.
Stakeholder
One who has a vested interest in the use of
automation in Arizona State Government.
State CIO
The DOA Information Services Division
Assistant Director. This position is chartered
with the responsibilities outlined in A.R.S. $41-
712, A.R.S. $41-713, A.R.S. $41-798, and
A.R.S 541-802. The State CIO has the
responsibility of managing the State IRM
program.
Strategic Issues
Questions that identify the critical policy areas
in which action is necessary to attain the goals.
These are the statements that determine the
enterprise's future direction.
Strategic Plans
The mechanism that is a structured form for
outlining the process of meeting the goals oflthe
AZTEL 2000 Task Force. Each plan details the
steps, accountability, scheduling, resources,
success factors, and feedback mechanisms
required for achievement.
Strategies
Statements that delineate the methods by which
the enterprise addresses its goals and objectives.
Task Team
A team of individuals from various agencies
appointed by the CIO Council to investigate
interagency issues.
Transmission Control ProtocoVInternet
Protocol
A communications protocol developed under
contract from the Department of Defense
(DOD) to inter-network dissimilar systems.
Telecommuting
Telecommuting refers to the use of computers,
telephone lines, and other electronic devices to
enable

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

Copyright to this resource is held by the creating agency and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be downloaded, reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the creating agency. Any attempt to circumvent the access controls placed on this file is a violation of United States and international copyright laws, and is subject to criminal prosecution.

APRIL 1994
STRA TEGIC PLAN
FOR
ARIZONA 'S
INFORMA TION
INFRASTRUCTURE
Ptepared By:
AZTEL 2000 Ttwk pork
FIFE SYMINGTON
Governor
J. ELLlOlT HlBBS
Director
ARIZONA DEPARTMENOTF ADMINISTRATION
Information Services Division
1616 West Adorns
Phoenix, AZ 85007
APRIL 1994
On behalf of the AZTEL 2000 Task Force and the telecommunications sub-committee, I am
pleased to present the Strategic Plan for Arizona's Information Infuastructure. This plan was
developed through a collaborative effort on the part of State, City of Phoenix, and Maricopa
County governments; the Universities; and the private sector. This has been a unique
opportunity to partner with information users and providers across various political
boundaries. Although there are many separate networks being used, each of the participants
have recognized that the concept of a common border-to-border telecommunications network
can be the enabler to providing improved methods for accessing government information and
services.
Telecommunications networking has become an important issue to many different groups in
Arizona. This is demonstrated by the efforts of the Governor's Strategic Partnership for
Economic Development (GSPED) group, the Arizona Educational and Informational
~elecommunicationsC ooperative (AEITC), and several other groups seeking ways to improve
access to information.
The sharing of ideas in AZTEL 2000 meetings has resulted in a mission, vision, goals, and
objectives that illustrate a broad understanding of the information needs of Arizona. The goals
and objectives have gone beyond the internally focused technical issues to create a broader
perspective of service to the citizens of Arizona in applications such as education, health, and
public safety. To achieve a common network, it is mandatory to have a point of focus for
government to realize the ultimate benefits of technology in meeting the strategic business
challenges of today.
We feel this plan will serve as the catalyst for on-going discussion and a guide for future
actions to meet the challenges and opportunities posed to the governments of Arizona by the
information age.
I wish to thank everyone that participated in the plan preparation and all those that took the
time to complete the telecommunications surveys which provided valuable information in the
development of implementation strategies.
Chief Information Officer
Acknowledgments
T his section contains a list of the individuals
whose tireless efforts have resulted in the
formulation of the AZTEL 2000 strategy.
J. Elliott Hibbs Director - Department of
Administration (DOA)
Edward V. Hatler CIO/Assistant Director DOA -
Information Services Division
Rob Olding MIS Bureau Administrator - Department
of Corrections (DOC)
Bill Pierce Assistant Director, Data Administration
Division - Department of Economic Security (DES)
Kathryn Kilroy Deputy Associate Superintendent -
Department of Education (DOE)
Larry Dannenfeldt Associate Director, Information
Technical Services - Department of Health Services
PHs)
Steve West Computer System Manager - Legislative
Council
Gary Peet Director, MIS - Arizona Supreme Court
Rudy Serino Deputy Director - DOA
Jeff McNany STARPAS Project Manager -
Corporation Commission
Barbera Bridgewater Assistant Director,
I.S.D. - Arizona Health Cost Care Containment
System (AHCCCS)
Rick Kleinschmidt MIS Manager - Department
of Commerce
Manny Lerma Director of Government
Relations - US West
John McDowell Data Processing Manager -
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Tony Miele Director - Library Extension
Division
Rupert Loza Assistant Director, Data
Processing - Arizona Lottery
Jim Goodlett Information Services Manager -
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
Janelle O'Dell Executive Director - Arizona
Educational and Informational
Telecommunications Cooperative (AEITC)
Mr. John Badal AT&T
Bob Ramming Acting Assistant Director,
Information Systems - Department of Public
Safety (DPS)
Mr. Alan Hald Microage
Dr. Larry Rapagnani Associate Vice President
for Computing and Information Technology -
University of Arizona
Mr. Donald Issacson Ridge & Issacson, P. C.
Mr. Steve Wheeler Snell & Wilmer
Richard Carlson Assistant Director, Service
Bureau - DPS
Jan Baltzer Director of Computing &
Communications - Maricopa Community
Colleges
Art Ashton Arizona Board of Regents
Dr. Bill Lewis Vice President for Information
Technology - Arizona State University
Dr Ed Groenhout Assistant Vice President
for Educational Systems Development -
Northern Arizona University
Mr. C. A. Howlett Lewis and Roca
Mr. Ron Trascente Vice President - Honeywell
Communications Flight Systems
Curt Knight Manager Carrier Services
Section - DPS
Linda Cannoli IRM Manager - Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Pete Edgar Data Branch Manager -
Department of Game and Fish
Bob Buse EDP System Manager, Data
Administration Division - DES
Paul Van Gundy IRM Manager - Industrial
Commission
Ted Kraver Interim Information Systems
Coordinator - LearningmesearcWEnterprise,
Inc.
Dr. Henry Hoyt Interim Information Systems
Coordinator- Maricopa County
Frank Secondo Assistant Director,
Administration Services - Department of Water
Resources (D WR)
Laurie Dryden Supervisor of Licensing -
Education Real Estate Department
David McCarroll Acting Deputy Director -
Youth Treatment & Rehabilitation
J. David Hann Governor's Automation
Oversight Committee
John Jacobs Governor's Automation
Oversight Committee
Dennis Kittrell EDP Manager II - DOE
The AZTEL 2000 Sub-committee:
Edward V. Hatler CIO/Assistant Director
DOA - Information Services Division
Rob Olding MIS Bureau Administrator - DOC
Bob Buse EDP System Manager
Administration Division - DES
Mr. Alex Belous Program Specialist - DOE
John Amidon Technical Support Manager -
DOT
John Evarts Manager, Network Services -
AHCCCS
Curt Knight Manager, Carrier Services
Section - DPS
Jeff Mcnany STARPAS Project Manager -
Corporation Commission
Bruce Hensley Administration Services
Manager - AHCCCS
Max Brawley Information Technology
Manager - City of Phoenix
Mr. Bill Phillips (For Lera Riley) City of
Phoenix, Representing the Arizona League of
Cities and Towns
Rick Woods Technical Support Specialist III -
DOR
Frank Gazda Programmer Analyst -
Department of Game and Fish
Tom Young Planning Coordinator I.S.D. -
DOA
Kathryn Kilroy Deputy Associate
Superintendent - DOE
Barbera Bridgewater Assistant Director I.S.D.
- AHCCCS
Dr Bill Lewis Vice Provost for Information
Technology - Arizona State University
Dr. Henry Hoyt Interim Information Systems
Coordinator - Maricopa County
Guy Wilson Project Leader - DES
Larry Beauchat Communications Manager - DOA
Table of Content
I . Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 6
I1 . Introduction .................................................................................................................. 7
I11 . Current Environment ............................................................................................... 10
Problem Statement ................................................................................................1..0..
Key Issues ................................................................................................................1. 0
The AZTEL 2000 Information Survey ....................................................................1. 1
What the Survey Data Shows ..................................................................................1..1
The Need for a Statewide Network ........................................................................... 12
IV . Future Environment ................................................................................................ 13
V . Restructuring Government With New Technology ................................................ 14
VI . Vision for Arizona's Future Communications Services ........................................ 16
VII . Organizational Structure ......................................................................................... 18
VIII . The AZTEL 2000 Direction: Goals. Objectives. & Strategies ............................... 20
Part A . Development of Goals. Objectives. and Strategies ....................................2. 0
Part B . Integration of Goals. Objectives. and Strategies ..........................................2 1
Part C . Progress Measurements and Feedback Mechanisms ..................................2. 8
Part D . Summary ..................................................................................................3..0..
IX . AZTEL 2000 Implementation Plan .......................................................................... 31
Appendix: AZTEL 2000 Survey Results ................................................................................. 34
Glossary .......................................................................................................................................... 42
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 48
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure 5
I. Executive Summary
I n the Spring of 1993, Governor Fife Symington AZTEL 2000 presents a vision of future
asked the Arizona Department of Administration to communications systems and services, and
"Create a common statewide telecommunications recommends the creation of an Information
strategy...". A task force consisting of representatives Infrastructure Policy Board to coordinate and oversee
of State, County, and City agencies, elected officials, the development of Arizona's telecommunications
and business interests was assembled under the name infrastructure. The report also contains a four-part
AZTEL 2000. The AZTEL series and summarv of
2000 Task Force held goals, objectives, and
meetings, conducted surveys, strategies, complemented by
studied issues, assessed an implementation
strengths and weaknesses, "Create a common statewide telecommunications schedule.
and developed a report strategy" which ensures the creation of an
entitled the Strategic Plan for environment to support and maintain Finally, AZTEL 2000
Arizona's Information recommends the immediate
Infrastructure. This report establishment and
was composed with the endorsement of a project
participation of thirty-four team consisting of
public and private entities designated specialists, many
through the provision of of whom are to be drawn
recognized telecommuni- from and supported by
cations and systems experts members of the AZTEL
and leaders, and led by the 2000 Task Force. A smaller
Department of group of hand-picked team
Administration. members has been identified
and will serve as the base-
The report concludes that unit for an application to the
current and future National Telecommuni-telecommunications
cations and Information
environments are central to Administration (NTIA)
the economic, social, and under the Telecommuni-educational
growth of the cations and Information
businesses and people of the Infrastructure Assistance
State, and that the Program (TIIAP). It is
infrastructure needed to support Arizona's emerging envisioned that the project team will function as staff
future must be flexible, dynamic, and inclusive. for continuing AZTEL 2000 activities in planning and
The AZTEL 2000 Task Force cites studies and critical development, and as a bridge to a formal structure
assumptions leading to service improvements and resulting from the advent of legislation authorizing the
creating an impetus toward restructuring government, Information Infrastructure Policy Board recommended
developing responsive organizational structures, above.
preparing for informational requisites, and open access.
BENEEITS:
d Leverage Skills and Resources
d Ensure proper investment in technozogies
d Reduces Time to Deliver
d Allows the Ability to Exploit New Methods, techniques,
processes afforded by Emerging Technologies
d Conservative estimates indicate a net return of about
20% of the annual Telecom Budget
1
6 Stare of Arizona
IP. Introduction w e live in an ever-changing information age outlet has presented their own perspective on the
where every decision, opportunity, or plan information superhighway.
depends on the availability, timeliness, The State of Arizona is no different. In 1992, Elliott
relevance, and accuracy of information. Currently, Hibbs, Director of the Department of Administration
Arizona does not have the ability to provide this (DOA), became associated with several different
information electronically in a uniform, real-time activities, all of which appeared to be addressing the
environment, inhibiting the State's ability to compete in same or similar issues concerning the current and
today's highly competitive society. Our vision for future telecommunications infrastructure of the State of
AZTEL 2000 is: Arizona. These activities included:
"Through cooperative efforts, Arizona's information The Governor's State Long-term Improvement
infrastructure should provide the highest quality in Management (SLIM) program.
services and accessibility to promote cost effective,
efficient, accurate, and timely information exchanges The DOA's study of it's own
for public sector users, business partners, and citizens" telecommunications needs.
It was determined in a recent The Governor's
session of the AZTEL 2000 Science and
Task Force that the following Technology
critical success factors must be Council report
achieved if we are to bring the on drivers for
benefits of AZTEL 2000 to the the State's
State of Arizona: + Other Agencies and Organ&zationa economic
u s sprint ? Lcag"e Of c i t i e s and Town. + city of P~IOC~~X growth.
Official recognition of r M ~ O~Oo - u~n i t ~ Colleges
the network project by . HO~-ell r AEITC Governor's
the Arizona legislature UO tSh Weres sMt nquind .. MMAarGl copa County Strategic
and the Governor. 4 GAOC + State Agencies . ACC
Partnership for
a AHCCCS . G~PED Economic
The authorization of a BOARD OF REGENTS + state CIO council
* court.
Development
full-time AZTEL 2000 c ~ t t o r n e yG enerpl'. ~ m c e (GSPED)
project team by the + MU
r U o f A
Activities.
Governor. c NAu Because
The benefits of AZTEL Arizona's
2000 are clearly approach to
articulated for all networking and
participants (both users communications
and providers). has been
fragmented in the past, many people have
Total commitment is achieved for the expressed an interest in forming some type of
development, implementation, and use of the association to organize current efforts and to
Arizona information infrastructure. prepare for future needs and opportunities.
All users are involved in the creation, Arizona Educational and Informational
implementation, and management of Arizona's Telecommunications Cooperative (AEITC)
telecommunications infrastructure. Activities. AEITC is dedicated to encouraging
An effective regulatory environment must be and advancing cooperative planning,
developed to promote the development of a development, and implementation of
robust information infrastructure environment. educational and informational
telecommunications in the State of Arizona.
Technology advances are well managed and
implemented. Social and economic paradigm shifts.
The Gartner Group reported in the February 1994 Changes in computing and telecommunications
Strategic Planning Research Note on Enterprise technologies.
Network Strategies that: The National Agenda, a vision of Change for
"Not since AT&Tfs divestiture in 1984 has there been America, which states that "the development of
as much hyperbole and uncertainty in the a broad band, interactive telecommunications
telecommunications industry as that generated by the network linking the nation's businesses, schools,
events involving Information Superhighways" libraries, hospitals, governments, and others
could pay enormous dividends':
Over the past few months, virtually every major
information technology, business, and general press
Strategic Plan for ArizonaS Telecommunications Infrastructure 7
Armed with this knowledge,. the Department Of
Administration drafted an Executive Order for a
Government Telecommunications Task Force and
delivered it to the Governor's office for consideration.
Arizona's current telecommunications infrastructure
consists of redundant systems, data, and information;
technical inconsistencies; and limited integrated
telecommunications. This results in an inability to
maintain or increase our competitive edge in today's
highly technical
environment. A collection of
non-integrated systems
without (1) the means for
cost effective, centrally
managed administration, and
(2) the ability to integrate or
consolidate costs and
resources, cannot be
restructured without a
tremendous amount of
planning, discipline, and
teamwork. Even though the
problem has implications for
a multitude of areas of
business and technology, the
AZTEL 2000 Task Force was
organized and has dedicated
itself to the area of improved
state-of-the-art
telecommunications.
Support of our telecommunications enterprises
in the global marketplace
Readily available government services
Enhanced access to health care
Improved public safety and emergency care
* Improved life-long education
Improved economic
well-being
Considerations:
- Stakeholders
On-going governing and oversight responsibility(ies)
Business requirements and the ability to integrate same
Quantijiable benefits
Connectivity & operational implications of shared services I Strategic and tactical investment strategies
Available resources on current needs assessment(s)
Operation, maintenance, and enhancements during transition
On-going funding for operation, maintenance, and enhancements
Ability to re-invest savings to make this a sev-funding effort
Authority for initiation, implementation, operation, and funding
In this day and age, the information infrastructure is
critical to the functioning of a modern society. As in
other modern economies, the competitive survival of
Arizona's business and work force depends on both the
flow of information and the infrastructure that controls
that information within the State. Critical services such
as government, education, manufacturing, agriculture,
financial services, transportation, wholesale and retail
commerce, and utilities are all becoming increasingly
dependent on telecommunications for cost effective
administration.
Social, economic, and technical issues are driving the
State of Arizona into a collaborative approach for
addressing this new paradigm shift. Arizona entities,
both public and private, can accelerate the use of time-saving,
productivity-boosting, distance-spanning
information technologies for Arizona's people,
communities, and the private sector. This can create,
maintain, and enhance the economic development of
Arizona, as well as adopt a strategic information
infrastructure that moves information within and,
where appropriate, to and from the State.
As with other states, the drivers promoting the need for
this type of activity within Arizona are:
North American Free
Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) data link for
expanded commerce
Improved government
cost, efficiency, and
effectiveness
A balance between
information access and
individual privacy
Timely, efficient, and
cost-effective
introduction to and use
of appropriate emerging
technologies
* Affordable
telecommunications
services
Increased choices in telecommunications and
information services
Key Infrastructure Assumptions
The following list shows the key AZTEL 2000
infrastructure assumptions for Arizona's
telecommunications infrastructure:
It must meet, or be able to evolve to meet, all or
the majority of telecommunication requirements
of the State, County, and City agencies and
institutions. When fully implemented, it must
provide appropriate standards to interconnect
and provide access to host computers across
agencies.
Implementation should take advantage of
existing equipment and networks to minimize
costs (for example, the fiber ring on the Capitol
Mall known as MAGNET).
It will be "open" and, whenever feasible, based
on recognized industry standards such as ANSI,
ISO, and OSF.
Enhanced global competitive advantage for our It must be flexible. The network must provide
business clusters flexibilitv to exvand andlor contract easilv and
Rapid development of quality jobs
Environmental, family, and business benefits
from telecommuting
economi~allyt6 accommodate new applications
when required.
8 State of Arizona
It must employ appropriate measures to protect
the confidentiality and integrity of information.
Additionally, it must include a disciplined plan
for business continuation in the event of a local,
regional, or national disaster.
It should use proven technology and, more
importantly, the infrastructure should evolve to
encompass emerging technology where
appropriate without rendering significant
portions of existing environments obsolete.
for the strategic development and use of Arizona's
telecommunications infrastructure. The management
and operational style utilized throughout this effort was
in a team oriented, quality guided approach based on
the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM).
The Task Force provided the following:
The development of a vision, mission, plans,
and implementation strategies, which require
further development of policies, standards, and
designs.
Implementation of the infrastructure should be
accomplished with strict coordination between
the service providers and the end users to
minimize the impact of service interruption.
Policy and infrastructure alone, without
adequate applications to make use of the
infrastructure, could result in facilities that are
unused, inappropriate, or too expensive for
Arizona's needs. Coupling a drive for improved
infrastructure with concurrent development of
key strategic applications can ensure that the
desired benefits are achieved. Examples are:
- Distance learning
- Health service delivery
- Public safety
- State and local government networking
- Data-link to trade and commerce data
bases (intra and inter Statelcountry)
- Public access to State, County, and City
government
To meet the tactical and strategic objectives mandated
by the Stakeholders for improving the State's
information infrastructure, a Telecommunications
Strategy Planning project was formed with a Task
Force made up of both public and private participants.
The AZTEL 2000 Task Team, identified in the August
1993 Task Force meeting, provided the direction and
advice to participants, and acted as an oversight body
Encouraged partnerships between State
agencies, Cities, Counties, education K-12,
universities, community colleges, and the
private sector on the development of goals,
objectives, and strategies for the effective use of
communication technologies.
The procurement of project support services
systems, personnel, and facilities.
A needs assessment on the existing
telecommunication systems and the integration
with other state and local government systems,
and public-private partnerships.
The recognition of a "Best of Breed" from other
organizations addressing similar activities, and
the identification of emerging technologies as
they become available.
As with all major activities, there are issues and
considerations that must be addressed throughout the
life of the project. In the AZTEL 2000 project, we
identified several key issues, each with unique subtitles
that must be satisfied prior to the completion and final
implementation of Arizona's telecommunications
infrastructure. This document contains some of the key
issues that are currently being considered as part of the
implementation of the AZTEL 2000 initiative. Some
of these strategies can be implemented immediately,
while others may take years. The majority will be
somewhere in the middle.
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure 9
111. Current Environment
T his section addresses some of the problems we 2. A lack of commitment by government to make a
currently face in Arizona's existing statewide network a reality.
1 telecommunications environment.-This section
also contains a summary of the survey conducted by Commitment is critical to the success of any
the AZTEL 2000 committee, which was used to level of implementation of the AZTEL 2000
produce a snapshot of Arizona's current networking plan. Commitment from the leadership of the
environment so that an accurate analysis of Arizona's State, Counties, and Cities is essential to
future telecommunications reauirements could be guarantee the success of this project.
All of these factors demonstrate Arizona's need for
adopting a uniform approach to the application,
functionality, administration, and understanding of
telecommunications.
Key Issues
produced. 3. The lack of an effective finding plan for a
statewide network.
Problem Statement This implies a
Today, there are many issues that exist within State and
local government concerning Arizona's current and
future telecommunications requirements. The majority
of these issues deal with the reasons why Arizona's
State, County and City governments have not
aggressively embraced telecommunications as a viable
alternative for the uniform management of information
resources.
The AZTEL 2000 committee has identified the
following 10 major issues:
1. A lack of understanding of the need for a
statewide network.
- What is it?
- Who will use it?
- What will they use it for?
- How will it benefit my community?
Currently, there are a wide
variety of different networking
technologies operating within
Arizona's public and private
sectors, with the majority
functioning as independent
operators.
Duplication of costs, networking
administration, and resources is
common place. The AZTEL
2000 Task Force participants
have conservatively estimated
that the total annual expenditures
for telecommunications by all
State and local government
and security policies.
5. The lack of a single voice for the development
of a statewide network.
PROBLEM STATEMENT:
Redundant systems
Technical inconsistencies abounding
Duplicity ofdata and information
Limited integrated telecommunications
Inability to maintain or increase competitive edge
Business and organizational inconsistencies
This should include the public and private
sectors and the citizens, should be recognized
by all parties statewide, and should have
continuous, ongoing funding.
requirement for a
coordinated effort,
blending the need
for public and
private funding.
4. The lack of a
public and private
Information
Policy Board for
the development
of a statewide
networking policy.
This Board should
be appointed by
the Governor with
6. The lack of a single point of responsibility for a
statewide network.
agencies will be $100,000,000.00. the consent of the
The appointment of a full-time staff is needed
to refine and implement the AZTEL 2000
strategic plan for Arizona's telecommunication
infrastructure. Responsibility for this action
needs to be established by the Governor so that
many of the inter-agency issues can be
addressed and resolved by a permanent,
established point of responsibility.
Assessing the current state of State Legislature.
telecommunications in Arizona is a difficult task Membership should include public and private
because there is no existing infrastructure to support a users, developers, and providers whose main
universal base for networking applications, responsibility will be setting Arizona's
functionality, and understanding. telecommunications information infrastructure
'
7. The lack of a robust telecommunications
infrastructure to support statewide networking.
The major telecommunications infrastructure
provider is US West. They have publicly
declared that they are selling 10 of their central
offices because they are too costly to maintain.
State of Arizona
They have also declared that they are not
investing in Arizona at this time because their
annual return on investment is only 3 to 4 %.
The Arizona Corporation Commission and US
West do not agree on this assessment. Arizona
needs to have a robust infrastructure to
implement AZTEL 2000, so this impasse needs
to be resolved.
8. The lack of defined needs and applications for
private sector participation in a statewide
network.
What type of services would make the private
sector want to participate? There must be some
value added to the network provided by the
private sector.
9. The inability to reach all Arizona citizens.
The major issue in Washington on the National
Information Infrastructure initiative is the
ubiquitous access to the information
superhighway by all citizens (avoiding the
creation of information "haves" and "have
nots"). Unless this issue is addressed,
roadblocks will appear everywhere as we begin
to implement a telecommunications
infrastructure. Where will rural citizens access
services, from State-provided centers or from
their homes?
10. The lack of a single statewide utility.
Few agency or institution leaders understand
networking beyond the commonly used buzz
words. Leadership must be capable of living
beyond the next election. The Regional Bell
Operating Company (RBOC) influence is far
too strong, creating cited legislation. The State
needs a switching center where everyone can
meet, including the major telecommunications
carriers.
The AZTEL 2000 Information Survey
In an attempt to get a picture of both the current status
of networking within the State of Arizona and an idea
of Arizona's future telecommunications requirements,
the AZTEL 2000 committee conducted a survey of the
following public institutions:
State agencies
County governments
City governments
Libraries
Universities
Community colleges
K- 12 schools
Two survey documents were developed. The first
survey was designed to capture the current status of
networking within the State of Arizona. The results of
this survey are summarized in Table 2,3,4,5, and 6
in Appendix: AZTEL 2000 Survey Results.
The second part of the survey referenced future
network activity that was either planned or desired, and
the results of this survey are summarized in Table 1 in
section IV. Future Environment.
-
What the Survey Data Shows
Table 1 contains the results of the Futures
portion of the survey, which gives a good
indication of the kind of networking
applications the survey respondents would like
to purchase in the future. When asked why they
have not yet acquired one or more of these
applications, the majority of respondents
indicated a lack of funding as the major barrier
to expanding their current networks. Many of
the respondents also expressed a strong desire
to connect to the proposed Arizona
telecommunications network to reduce costs,
gain access to more applications, and
consolidate resource management
responsibilities.
Table 2 summarizes the resource surveys that
were distributed. Only 6.6% of the surveys
were returned due to a combination of various
factors, including the complexity of the survey
material, the time involved in researching the
survey questions, and the failure to perceive the
importance of the survey to the future of
Arizona. The lowest response rate came from
the K-12 schools because most of these schools
have no networking capabilities, which inhibits
their ability to exchange information and
educational materials with other learning
institutions. Currently, the quality and
availability of educational technologies is
proportionately tied to the tax base for most
rural areas. Providing these areas with access to
a cost effective, centrally managed
telecommunications network would go a long
way in eliminating this problem.
Table 3 contains a summary of the current
networking circuit capacity for the State. This
table shows that the vast majority of circuits
originate in the metropolitan Phoenix area,
while the rest of the State has little or no
networking capabilities. The main factors
driving this situation are a lack of available
funding and access to cost effective, centrally
managed telecommunications technology. This
is significant, because it illustrates the need for
a uniform statewide telecommunications
infrastructure that can serve the entire State.
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure
Table 4 is a list of the organizations that
responded to the surveys and is included in this
document to acknowledge their participation in
this effort.
Table 5 lists the network protocols used by the
respondents and the concerns they have
regarding their current networks. This table
shows that 18 different network protocols are
currently being used by the various respondents.
The divergence in protocols is a significant
illustration of the individual approaches to
resolving specific telecommunications
requirements. This approach may adequately
serve each individual organization, but it also
illustrates a redundancy in applications and
information resources and cost, and ignores the
concept of inter-network compatibility, data
exchange, and centralized, cost effective
resource management.
Table 6 is the heart of the data received in the
surveys. It lists the number and capacity of the
various circuits reported between locations in
the State. It also includes data on the current
funding levels that some agencies are devoting
to communications circuits. The significance of
the data contained in this table lies in the
individual monthly line and equipment costs.
These statistics show that the metropolitan areas
employ most of the technology and absorb most
of the administration and application costs,
while the rural areas are lagging far behind in
every category. The disparity in usage, access,
equipment, and costs illustrates Arizona's
current non-unified, non-centralized approach
to networking.
The Need for a Statewide Network
As we enter the information age and the trend of
having to do more with less continues, coupled with the
growing need for information, change is inevitable. As
NAFTA becomes a reality, we must exploit our
technological advantage to maintain our economic
competitiveness. The Federal National Information
Infrastructure (NII) initiative has heightened the
awareness of the citizens of Arizona toward the
potential value of access to information in our lives.
Avoiding the creation of two classes of citizens, the
information "haves" and "have nots", is critical. The
disappointing attitude of our primary common carrier's
willingness to invest in Arizona is obvious. The need
to do more resource sharing among State agencies
while avoiding duplication of effort is easy to see.
As State agencies embark for the first time on a
common State IRM Plan, the reduction of duplicated
services will be possible. As the State takes more steps
to reduce environmental pollution in the metropolitan
areas, the need for telecommuting and video to reduce
travel and improve the quality of life will become more
critical.
This section lists many reasons why the State needs to
establish a comprehensive program to provide equal
access to the information superhighway for the citizens
of Arizona. However, this is only a sampling of the
reasons to have a statewide telecommunications
program.
This network effort will become a reality only if a
significant commitment is made by the State, including
the Governor, the Legislature, the private industry, and
the individual citizen.
12 State of Arizorza
IV. Future Environment
T his section describes the results of the Futures The respondents to our survey referenced the features
survey conducted by the AZTEL 2000 addressed in this document, such as electronic
Committee on Arizona's future surveillance monitoring and screening, identification
telecommunications requirements. It also addresses technologies, and artificial intelligence as additions to
some of the ways Arizona can benefit from the the list of services they would like to have available in
implementation of a uniform statewide the future.
telecommunications network. In the fall of 1993. the State CIO Council vrevared a
Future Communications Requirements Strategic Plan for information Resource ~ a n a ~ e m e n t
(IRM) 1994-1999. This ~ l a cna lls for the creation of a
A review of the data reported in the statewid; information architecture and
Futures survey indicates that there is a addressed six goals, of which the
large demand for information second and third goals are:
technology services. One of the Provide universal access to
questions asked was what functionality statewide information, limited
do you plan to add in the next 12,24, only by privacy requirements.
and 48 months. There were 59
respondents that completed the Futures Provide optimum service
portion of the survey and their delivery to the agencies and the
responses are tabulated in Table 1. public.
All of the respondents stated their The passage of NAFTA is bringing
overall commitment to acquiring some additional demands for information
form of telecommunications infrastructure resources with the
technology. They expressed a key increased complexity of having to cross
interest in such applications as E- state boundaries and associated Local
MAIL, local area networks (LANs), Access Transport Area (LATA)
wide area networks (WANs), Imaging, restrictions, national boundaries, and a
and Teleconferencing. Interoperability, whole new class of political and
connection to the Internet, and access technical problems. In Arizona, the
to data were all stressed as important information superhighway is critical to
concepts that were driving their our plans for NAFTA. Just as the
telecommunications futures. The interstate highway system has played a
single most important inhibiting factor critical role in traditional commerce,
in determining the deployment of these the information superhighway will play
future services was budget, while the a major part in electronic commerce.
lack of technology was never considered a roadblock to The State of Arizona must ensure that it is not bypassed
progress. by the information superhighway as it is developed.
The functionality areas identified in the Futures survey Just as those communities that suffered, and in many
are very similar to those expressed in the Vision 2004 instances died, as a result of being bypassed by the
document prepared by the Arizona Judicial System in Interstate highway system in the past, Arizona also runs
June of 1993. the risk of being bypassed if it does not ensure
participation in the information superhighway plans for
the future.
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure 13
V. Restructuring Government With New Technology
U nderstanding the telecommunications plans and A practice that has placed an increased burden on
directions of the private sector and other telecommunications services is the trend toward
governmental entities is essential to enhancing distributed processing. This technology has resulted in
future compatibility with Arizona's strategic the placement of functionality at the desktop as
telecommunications infrastructure plan. The purpose opposed to a centralized computer facility. The
of this section is to identify the compelling issues of clientkerver model approach and use of relational
Federal, state, and local governments and their databases have made the desktop workstation
associated strategic directions. requirements increasingly significant with an increased
Citizens and business want more service and better demand for bandwidth.
results from their government. However, the costs of There has also been an increased emphasis on open
public programs are more than most citizens are willing systems in both Federal and state government. The
to pay. Information technology that delivers better idea behind open systems is to ensure interoperability
public services, while still covering its own costs, between multiple vendors and heterogeneous
should be considered an investment in the future. environments, which facilitates information exchange
By using technology to re-engineer and improve
government processes, the potential for saving time,
money, and other resources could be realized by
Federal, State (agencies and higher education
institutions) and local (counties, cities, schools, and
libraries) governments, the private sector, information
brokers, and citizens.
The current President's administration has taken a bold
step in establishing a National Information
Infrastructure (NII) that is designed to change the way
the American people communicate and do business.
The idea behind the digital superhighway is to link
universities, businesses, and private homes. The
telecommunications highway will link the nation's
burgeoning population of computers.
During the past four decades, the Federal government
has amassed a collection of research information in 650
separate laboratories. Now the administration wants to
make the information available to small and midsize
U.S. businesses in an ongoing exercise in technology
transfer to enable smaller companies to compete
globally.
State Government Experiences
As a result of Federal policy, it is apparent that state
governments are being asked to provide increased
services to their citizens without increasing spending.
Improving the utilization of state resources (human or
technological) is becoming critical in an environment
of increased emphasis on fiscal accountability.
The states have turned to Information Resource
Management (IRM) and, particularly, investment in
information technologies, as both a resource and tool
for providing better service. This trend reflects the
increasing importance on IRM and, specifically,
telecommunications as a strategic tool. States already
utilize extensive telecommunications resources in
different agencies and applications, ranging from
revenue collection and health and human services, to
law enforcement and the courts. It is through the use of
telecommunications that the states have been able to
bring services closer to their citizens.
"
and interoperability. This has resulted in a set of
specifications for open systems called Government
Open Systems Interconnection Profile (GOSIP), which
was mandated at the Federal level for acquisition of
information resources.
To accommodate the changes in computing, the
volume of data traffic is increasing at a rapid rate. It is
estimated that data traffic will surpass voice traffic by
the year 2000 as a result of new and advanced
applications. In a Federal GSA study released in mid-
1989, a six-fold increase in the government' s long-term
data communications requirements is projected by the
year 2000. This study projected agency intercity data
traffic rising from 46,000 to 159,000 gigabytes (billions
of characters) per month in 1995 for an average annual
growth rate of 23 percent.
Regulation Continues Zb Be An Issue
Regulation of some of the telecommunicationsSqervices
has continued to cause problems for the acquisition of
products and services to meet government
requirements. In the vendor provided proposals
received as a result of the AZTEL 2000 Request for
Information, most of the vendors identified regulation
as a barrier to future communications networking.
Budget Issues
State governments are spending about $20 billion per
year on information resources that are beginning to be
viewed as strategic assets. For most of the states
responding to a recent National Association of State
Information Resource Executives (NASIRE) survey,
the IRM budget represented about one to two percent
of the total state budget, with only two states exceeding
four percent. The average communications expenditure
is about 15.2 percent of the IRM budget, with the full
spectrum of expenditures ranging from a minimum of
2.6 to 38 percent. All states have taken steps to contain
expenditures in different ways. These steps include
acquisition and implementation of private networks,
purchase of station equipment as opposed to leasing,
and centralized planning, procurement, and design.
14 State of Arizona
The consolidation of various administrative functions,
while making the functionality available through
networking and telecommunications, also appears to be
high on the list for cost-control purposes.
Organization Structure
In some states, telecommunications responsibilities
have been fragmented among individual organizations.
As a result, multiple entities were involved in the
decision-making process, thus making overall
coordination from a state's perspective extremely
difficult.
Changes have been precipitated at the organizational
level to better respond to the present environment. A
large number of state governments have undergone
reorganization during the past three years for reasons of
increased efficiency, better policy coordination, and
cost containment. Information resource and
telecommunications are either part of the same
organization, or report to a larger entity to ensure
coordination at a policy level. To support this process,
a significant number of states have an IRM oversight
commission, and approximately three-fourths of the
states have a Chief Information Officer (CIO). Of the
states responding to the NASIRE survey, most have
dedicated organizations providing telecommunications
services.
There is a trend toward the integration of voice and
data functions within the organizations generally
involved with all aspects of the functional areas of
support, such as network operations and control, long-range
planning, network design, request for proposals
and bid preparation, and vendor selection.
Primary Telecommunications Issues
Faced with a slow and anemic economy, the states have
limited resources for providing telecommunications
services. This, coupled with additional constraints,
especially in the areas of funding for training and
personnel development, causes the states to look at
technologies having the biggest payoff in terms of
employee productivity.
One such area is office automation. Communication
tools, such as facsimile machines (FAX), electronic
mail (E-Mail), voice mail (V-Mail), and audio and
video teleconferencing systems have appeared in most
aspects of state government planning.
Despite all the issues, most states are looking forward
and have become involved in some innovative
activities to improve the services they provide. They
are trying to understand the business needsfirst and
then trying to apply technology to meet those
requirements. They also understand that technology
alone will not resolve the issues confronting them and,
to a great extent, may be the cause of the confusion,
fueled by different vendors promoting their own
--
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure
products as cure-alls. States need to take both a
coordinated view and a cohesive approach to ensure
that the different technologies, policies, and standards
fit together in a harmonious manner.
There are a number of telecommunications initiatives
being pursued by almost all states, including:
Interactive Voice Response - This technology
offers improved service and productivity in a cost
effective manner by allowing the citizens access to
data using their telephone while providing state
agencies with a means of collecting information.
The technology is presently being employed in
several states for applications such as automated
student registration, health and human service
information, drivers license and vehicle registration
information.
Telecommuting - Projects are being implemented
in several states on a pilot basis. Telecommuting is
being used extensively in California to improve
employee productivity and employee quality of
work-life after the recent earthquakes.
Kiosks - As a part of multimedia research and
development projects, states are investigating the
use of various forms of kiosk services to provide
the public access to state agency information.
Geographic Information System - This
technology, incorporating both image technology
and textual information, offers great potential for
the management of the environment, with
applications in management of natural resources
and transportation. This has tremendous
implications in terms of increased transmission
bandwidth requirements to the desktop.
Video teleconferencing - This technology holds
great promise for applications in several areas
within State government. These include a
reduction in travel in areas such as court systems
and hearings from correctional facilities.
Charge back strategies - States are adopting
charge back strategies for services considered
above and beyond the basic level of services
required by the average citizen. The states are also
looking into simple charge back mechanisms to bill
for those services and guarantee payment. One
such charge back mechanism under consideration is
a business partnership with the local telephone
operating company through the use of a 900-type
service.
Open access - Access to public information held by
government entities is a major issue when new
technologies are implemented. While there are
confidentiality concerns for some data, citizens
have a basic right of access to information held by
government.
VZ. Vision for Arizona's Future Communications Services
T his section describes the AZTEL 2000 vision for 3. The efficiency of government would be
Arizona's communications services and the increased as network connectivity among
benefits to the State of Arizona and its citizens agencies allowed faster and more accurate work
through the implementation of this vision. flow processes.
2&0 is represented in the
figure on the following page,
and as can be seen, is a radical
departure from today's
situation. The AZTEL 2000
project will foster the use of
telecommunications to
improve the efficiency of
government, education, and
The telecommunications 4. Access to
"Through cooperative eflorts, Arizona's
telecommunications infrastructure
provides the highest quality services and
accessibility to promote cost eflective,
eficient, accurate, and timely
information exchanges for public sector
users, business partners, and citizens."
environment envisioned
through the goals and
obiectives defined for AZTEL
-
medical care, and make these
services more available and a
government Vision Statement: would be
im~roveda s
th; capability
for businesses
and citizens to
obtain infor-mation
and
conduct busi-ness
over the
network
would be
provided.
affordable. The AZTEL 2000 role in the 5. Educational opportunities would be enhanced as
telecommunications future of Arizona as developed by schools and libraries throughout Arizona would
the AZTEL 2000 Task Force is contained in the vision be networked together and to other learning
and mission statements. centers
areas and provide access for citizens at public
facilities.
worldwide.
16 State of Arizona
Benefits:
The implementation of
AZTEL 2000 would provide
the modem technology base
necessary for Arizona to
participate in the information
age and be competitive by the
year 2000. Specific benefits
would be social as well as
economic and tangible as well
as intangible. Some of the
most important benefits are:
1. Money savings
Mission Statement:
"AZTEL 2000 will implement a statewide
telecommunications network with the capability of
supporting a wide range of services. The network
will be a cooperative partnership among government
entities at all levels, private business, and network
service providers. It will also have the capabilities
of providing an expanding range of services to
government, business, and the general public at an
affordable cost to the taxpayers of Arizona"
-
6. The basis for
improved,
lower cost
medical care
would be
provided as
networked
hospitals,
doctors, and
other primary
care providers
could do
improved
resulting from the diagnoses and
consolidation of more efficient
redundant networks and lower costs for new scheduling of patients. Training and public
services based on potential partnerships. health initiatives would be expanded and
supported at lower cost, and billing to insurers
2. Economic development in the State would could be done faster, more accurately, and with
increase with a modern, extensive, and less paper work.
competitively priced telecommunications
infrastructure to attract business and jobs. 7. The concept of universal access would be
enhanced as the network would reach rural
Arizona Information
Infrastructure Framework
L
Q
I 'Customer Benefits (Product)
Learning Videos What the Users
Electronic Commerce Learning Receive
Voice Conference
E-Mail Entertainment
Remote Computing Shopping 4nformrtlon servlc
File Access Documents Support & Training
Multi-media Information Bases
Forums
Special Interest Groups
The Users Media
Private and Public
The fisHlghway"
Sets Qround Rules
In the Publlc Interest
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure I7
VII. Organizational Structure
T his section describes the proposal drafted by the
AZTEL 2000 Task Force for the organizational
structure of Arizona's telecommunications
infrastructure. The model for this proposal was based
on the analyses performed by other states on the most
efficient ways to administer their telecommunications
resources.
The initial step in building the organizational structure
is to create an Information Infrastructure Policy Board,
as discussed below and represented in the
organizational chart following this section. The Board
would interact with a number of other key user
committees to help formulate and direct the
development of Arizona's telecommunications
infrastructure.
Responsibilities of the Information Infrastructure
Policy Board should include, but not be limited to:
1. Developing the Arizona Telecommunications
Master Plan through consultation with
telecommunications network customers and
with advice from the State Chief Information
Officer (CIO). The plan should provide for the
coordination of many different information
technologies to ensure that interoperability is
met.
2. Establishing telecommunications policies,
guidelines, and standards for management of
telecommunications transport services,
networks, and facilities.
3. Reviewing, assessing, and ensuring compliance
with Federal and State telecommunications
regulations governing the needs and functions
of network customers for telecommunications
transport services.
4. Advising the Governor and the State
Legislature on telecommunications matters.
5. Representing the needs and interests of
telecommunications customers in the
proceedings before the Arizona Corporation
Commission, the Federal communications
commission, and other governmental regulatory
agencies as appropriate.
6. Approving an annual operational budget and fee
structure.
7. Developing and submitting an annual report to
the Governor, State Legislature, and Director of
the Department Of Administration.
8. Establishing and promulgating rules and
regulations governing the use and funding of
the telecommunications services, equipment,
software, and networks associated with
Arizona's telecommunications infrastructure.
Responsibilities of the Service Provider User
Committee should include, but not be limited to:
1. Administering the approved Arizona
Telecommunications Master Plan and
coordinating the telecommunications transport
service network.
2. Reviewing all existing and future
telecommunications planning, networks,
systems, and programs to make
recommendations to the Information
Infrastructure Policy Board.
3. As appropriate, coordinating the acquisition of
compatible telecommunications equipment,
software, and licenses for telecommunications
transport service networks with all customers.
4. Coordinating telecommunications network
training.
5. Recommending the telecommunications fee
structure and budget to the Board and
administer approved budgets.
6. Implementing and monitoring all policies and
standards approved by the Board.
7. Functioning as an information clearing house,
ensuring that all participants have access to
information.
Responsibilities of all other User Committees should
include, but not be limited to:
1. Providing annual network requirements to the
Service Provider User Committee for planning
purposes.
2. Developing applications and programs
consistent with policies and standards adopted
by the Board.
3. Submitting recommended changes to policies
and standards to the Board.
The Information Infrastructure Policy Board should
consist of nine members appointed by the Governor
with the consent of the State Senate.
The Board members should be appointed to ensure a
broad and balanced representation of providers,
developers, and consumers of information technology.
The following is a suggested list of professional areas
from which representatives could be selected. This list
may be condensed or modified during the Board
selection process.
State, County, and City governments
Education
Human services
Business
Information processing technology
State of Arizona
Telecommunications chairman. The Board should also have a paid
Executive Director and an Administrative Assistant.
Finance
The Board will appoint subcommittees or establish
Commerce and trade working relationships with existing groups to ensure
Corporate management that members of the information community have a
forum to express their views. These committees should
Library and information sciences include at least one member of the Board to monitor
Marketing the proceedings and provide relevant information back
to the Board for decision making analysis.
Annual elections should be held among the Board
members to fill the positions of Chairman and Vice-
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure 19
VIII. The AZTEL 2000 Direction: Goals, Objectives, & Strategies
his section describes the goals, objectives, and Future) was the most succinct and useful in
Ts2trate0gies 0that m0ake. up the vision for AZTEL developing the Arizona plan and wish to thank
the Idaho staff for their contributions to our
efforts.
Part A. Development of Goals, 2. Vendor Responses to RFI
Objectives, and Strategies The AZTEL 2000 Task force also prepared and
issued a Request for Information (RFI) to the
1. Literature Review vendor community to identify strategies and
In order to develop a comprehensive set of obtain input for the goals and objectives
goals, objectives, and strategies for the Arizona developed by the committee. Each response was
project, the AZTEL 2000 Task Force reviewed summarized by task force members and used to
and analyzed a number of statewide plans, refine the strategies developed by the
studies, and reports from organizations engaged committee. The AZTEL 2000 Task Force
in similar activities (a) wishes to thank the
within other states, and (b) responding vendors
at the national level. Task for their creative
force members discussed input to this
the content of such plans process.
with representatives from
these states to clarify
3. AZTEL 2000
Task Force
information and identify Meetings
issues. This information
included, but was not In order to develop
limited to, materials the goals,
received from the states of objectives, and
Idaho, Texas, Georgia, strategies, the task
California, Kansas, New force members met
Mexico, Oregon, and on a weekly basis
Washington. from August, 1993
through April,
Information distributed at 1994 to volunteer
the national level, such as for and complete
publications, meeting task assignments,
notes, plan evaluations, discuss and resolve issues, compare and
and newspaper articles, were also reviewed and coordinate strategic initiatives and associated
analyzed for relevant content. These materials time frames, and gain consensus on the
were obtained from sources such as the materials presented in this strategic plan. In
National Telecommunications Information addition, the task force prepared an issue paper
Administration (NTIA), National Science regarding legal, funding, and legislative issues
Foundation (NSF), U.S. Department of with regard to the goals and objectives and
Commerce, National Governor's Association forwarded the paper to the Arizona state
(NGA), National Association of State Attorney General's Office and the Arizona
Telecommunications Directors (NASTD), and Corporation Commission for review and
the Gartner Group, as well as from newspapers opinion.
from across the country. In addition, relevant
materials produced within Arizona at various 4. Responsibilities for Strategies
levels of government (i.e., State, County, City) The AZTEL 2000 Task Force has yet to
and by telecommunications organizations (for identify the organizations that will be
example, AEITC, telecommunications carriers responsible for implementing the strategies
and service providers) were reviewed and identified in this document. In some cases,
analyzed prior to finalizing goals, objectives, existing organizations such as State and local
and strategies for Arizona's statewide effort. government agencies and educational entities
The Task Force met with representatives from will be assigned such responsibilities. In other
AEITC and GSPED to discuss strategic goals cases, new organizations such as the
and objectives to better meet the needs of the Information Infrastructure Policy Board will
constituents represented by these organizations. need to be established. This will require state
The AZTEL 2000 Task Force members felt that legislation, following discussions with public
the statewide plan received from the state of and private sector leaders on the organizational
Idaho (Telecomm '92: Connecting Idaho to the structure proposed in this document.
State of Arizona
Once this task has been completed, each
strategy will be updated to include the entity or
entities responsible for carrying out the strategy.
5. Refinement of Goals, Objectives, Strategies,
and Action Steps
The goals identified below have been
prioritized by the AZTEL 2000 Task Force and
are listed in prioritized order. However, since
the task force is primarily composed of
technical data processing staff from various
levels of Arizona government, the members
believe that the identified goals, objectives, and
strategies should be re-prioritized. The task
force recommends that this activity be
undertaken by the Information Infrastructure
Policy Board, following the establishment of
such a group, representing the diversity of
telecommunications interests across the State.
The strategies presented in this document
represent the combined efforts of the AZTEL
2000 Task Force members in identifying the
overall actions necessary to achieve the
objectives which they support. The task force
understands that additional strategies will be
developed, on an ongoing basis, to ensure a
comprehensive plan for project implementation.
This plan should be shared with various
organizations (for example, legislators,
government leaders, private industry,
telecommunications organizations, advocacy
groups, and citizens) to obtain input for
additional strategies and support for the plan,
prior to work plan development.
Following the adoption of this strategic plan,
action steps for each strategy will be developed
which delineate the detailed year by year tasks
and sub tasks necessary to complete each
strategy. This will form the basis for a detailed
project work plan which can be periodically
tracked to ensure that implementation tasks are
being completed on a timely basis. This
tracking process will also identify roadblocks,
as they occur, which can be resolved during the
actual implementation of the plan.
Part B. Integration of Goals,
Objectives, and Strategies
This section has been organized to present the overall
goals, followed by the objectives and strategies
necessary for their achievement.
Each of these objectives and strategies is linked to one
or more of the AZTEL 2000 goals. In this context, the
objectives and strategies can be thought of as major
steps in attaining these goals. They can also be thought
of as critical success factors required to accomplish the
goals and vision. The majority of the dates attached to
the strategies for each goal represent the proposed
target completion dates. All time periods are
represented in calendar years.
GOAL # 1
Use telecommunications to make government services
and information readily available.
Objective A:
Provide affordable telecommunications access to
government services.
Strategies:
1. 1997: Reduce the current cost of government
telecommunications through the provision of
centrally accessible network services.
2. 1997: Increase direct public access to
government services through the
implementation of various telecommunications
technologies.
3. 1999: Require governmental agencies to
provide access to on-line transactions that
identify services provided, requirements for
services, and service locations, based on the
geographical location of the individual, through
the use of commonly available technologies.
Objective B:
Provide citizen access to government through the
application of innovative telecommunications
technologies.
Strategies:
1. 1996: Enable citizens to electronically access
directories of State and local government office
locations and services through interactive
telephone and Kiosk technologies.
2. 1996: Distribute public information through
local television and radio broadcasting
companies.
3. 1996: Enable the public to electronically
access and retrieve public information from
government through FAX and electronic mail
(E-Mail) technologies.
4. 1999: Require government agencies to
implement automated systems that enable the
public to directly apply for services through the
use of commonly used automation technologies.
Every effort must be made to minimize the need
for the individual to travel to a service location.
Objective C:
Provide computerized and interactive voice access to
public information and services.
Strategies:
1. 1996: Enable the public to access all State
agencies using a common toll free (800)
telephone number.
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure
2. 1996: Enable the public to electronically Objective C:
access government services through voice mail
and interactive voice response technology to Coordinate public investment in telecommunications.
eliminate paper and expedite service delivery. Stratea"i es:
3. 2000: On an ongoing basis, implement
provisions for emerging technologies (for 1. 1995: Coordinate government
example, video teleconferencing) to facilitate telecommunications initiatives with State
greater citizen communications with economic development activities across public
government agencies. oerxgaamni~zalteiGo. nSsP (EfoDr
NOTE: See Goal # 5 for and ~EITC).
provisions of emergency
services. 2. 1996: Coordinate
public investment
GOAL #2 in telecommuni-v
Evaluate current and planned telecowmunication facilities cations networks
Use telecommunications to v Establish a strategic plan for a statewide telecommunicatwn and applications to
improve the efficiency and ensure a robust
statewide
eseffrevcictievse. ness government communications
environment at the
Objective A: v Develop a cost/benefl analysis. lowest possible
v Review and recommend funding alternatives.
Minimize public costs by cost.
aggregating telecommunications v Create an implementation plan.
services. v Develop andpresent report to the Governor. GOAL # 3
v' Develop and implement JZT training programs.
Strategies: Provide an information
environment consistent
1. 1998: Reduce the cost of with the public trust.
government services through the consolidation
of public telecommunications networks and
provisions for on-line information
clearinghouses.
2. 1999: Coordinate telecommunications network
activities among Arizona government agencies
with other states and the Federal government
using the Federal information superhighway to
reduce overall costs and expand access to
national and international information.
Objective B:
Establish a coordinating body to facilitate effective
utilization of the government system of
telecommunications.
Strategies:
1. 1995: Establish an Information Infrastructure
Policy Board to oversee network development,
implementation, and maintenance activities,
including access, utilization, fee setting, and
data linkages.
2. 1998: Implement service delivery effectiveness
improvements in the coverage, quality,
timeliness, and reliability of government
telecommunications networks through capacity
analysis and comparisons of network activities
and costs with the operations of other states.
Objective A:
Develop policy governing the privacy and sharing of
information, and ensure that this policy is continually
modified to cover new technologies and applications.
Strategies:
1. 1995: Establish a Security Committee to
oversee the statewide network with regard to
vulnerability identification, safeguard
protection and implementation, compliance
determinations, and enforcement standards.
This policy will be designed to facilitate
electronic access to public information through
appropriate security access levels.
2. 1995: Develop and implement policies and
related procedures governing the access and use
of information transmitted through Arizona's
telecommunications network.
3. 1996-2000: On an ongoing yearly basis,
accomplish periodic security reviews and risk
analyses, implementing appropriate corrective
actions when necessary.
Objective B:
Ensure information used throughout this
telecommunications environment has adequate
safeguards against unauthorized access.
22 State of Arizona
Strategies:
1. 1996: Review all proposals for access to the
statewide telecommunications network, as well
as those to provide services on the network, to
ensure compliance with applicable standards,
laws, and policies.
2. 1997: Ensure that all agencies providing
information services on the statewide
telecommunications network comply with the
established policies and procedures governing
access, use, and protection of information
through periodic security reviews and risk
analyses. In addition, document security abuses
and implement corrective actions as necessary.
GOAL # 4
Use telecommunications to improve the quality,
availability, and efficiency of Arizona education for
children and adults.
Objective A:
Provide lifelong learning opportunities to the citizenry
of Arizona through multiple access methods utilizing a
developed telecommunications infrastructure.
Strategies:
1. 1995: On an ongoing basis, develop and
promote educational opportunities which are
designed to introduce and instruct citizens on
the usage of telecommunications technology
through the universities, community colleges,
public libraries and government agencies.
These classes will range from elementary to
professional levels, and be geared to various
populations (elementary children to elderly
adults).
2. 1996: Implement demonstration projects for
lifelong learning programs through multiple
telecommunications technologies from public
broadcasting to on-line interactive educational
courses, such as video training.
Objective B:
Integrate telecommunications technology into the
preparation of Arizona's work force at elementary,
secondary, post-secondary, and continuing education
levels across the public and private sectors.
Strategies:
1. 1996: Publish materials on telecommuni-cations
objectives and issues for use in
developing curriculums by educational
institutions from primary through post
secondary levels. These materials should be
approved and distributed by an appropriate
State appointed commission and maintained
within a State information clearinghouse.
2. 1998: Provide educational governing boards at
the local through State levels, published
information for the development of
technologies for Arizona and the relationship of
those materials to education and the preparation
of a work force.
3. 1998: Implement programs for work force
preparation and worker retraining through
public and private partnerships utilizing
telecommunications technologies.
Objective C:
Provide telecommunications access to every
educational institution.
Strategies:
1. 1997: Implement programs for distance
learning activities which facilitate on-line
access to facilities such as instructional TV,
video conferences, and libraries through
universal Network Information Center (NIC)
service provisions.
1998: Provide educational institutions access
to available public and private sector
information databases using the statewide
telecommunications network, on a fee for usage
basis. This will occur through strategic
partnerships between educational institutions,
government, and private industry who
collaborate in the construction of new aspects of
the statewide telecommunications system.
3. 1999: Provide telecommunications access to
all classrooms and ensure interfaces to national
and international networks in order to create the
global schoolhouse.
GOAL # 5
Provide improved public safety and emergency care
services through modem telecommunications
technologies.
Objective A:
Provide enhanced statewide 91 1 service.
Strategy:
1996: Provide enhanced statewide 9 1 1 service
through appropriate local switching systems
with centralized dispatching and call routing
capabilities and associated voice response
technologies.
Objective B:
Provide a coordinated public safety radio network with
statewide coverage.
Strategic Plan for Arizona? Telecommunications Infrastructure
Strategies: Objective B:
1. 1997: Develop and implement a land mobile
public safety radio system to provide coverage
for areas of Arizona which are not addressed by
existing services.
2. 1998: Develop and implement a control
network that enables all public safety land
mobile radio systems in Arizona to interoperate.
3. 1999: Provide a comprehensive statewide
public safety radio network with mobile
telecommunications capabilities (for example,
cellular telephone and remote fingerprinting)
that facilitates seamless access by authorized
personnel.
Objective C:
Facilitate the use of electronic confinement.
Strategy:
1998: Continue to develop and implement an
electronic confinement system that incorporates
new and emerging electronic communications
methods.
GOAL # 6
Provide opportunities for improved economic well-being
for both rural and urban citizens.
Objective A:
Provide a wide and growing variety of infomation-based
services and transactions to all Arizonans using
multiple technologies.
Strategies:
1. 1996: Adopt policies that will stimulate
increased competition among
telecommunications carriers and service
providers to ensure a comprehensive statewide
telecommunications network to support State
economic development initiatives.
2. 1997: Implement a comprehensive program of
electronic commerce, including provisions for
telecomputing and other innovative projects,
through public and private partnerships and
cooperative strategies.
3. 1997: Implement special provisions for
network access and usage by persons with
disabilities (for example, special devices for
persons with hearing impairments).
4. 1997: Provide an incentive awards program
for innovative telecommunications projects
which expand network access for traditionally
hard to serve populations within the State, such
as Native American communities.
Provide a variety of quality telecommunications
services suitable to market Arizona as an attractive
location for business relocation and expansion.
Strategies:
1. 1997: Implement and expand demonstratiorl
projects which foster concurrent business and
work force expapsion.
2. 1997: Develop a catalog of
telecommunications services that are available
from the State telecommunications network that
are supportive of the business community.
3. 1998: Contract for a wide variety of affordable
telecommunications services based upon
economic development initiatives coordinated
by the Governors Strategic Partnership for
Economic Development (GSPED) that are
attractive to and supportive of the Arizona
business community
NOTE: See Goals #I and #2 for provisions to expand
telecommunications access to government.
GOAL # 7
Use telecommunications to support an integrated health
care system.
Objective A:
Use telecommunications to reduce health care costs and
enhance access to health care.
Strategies:
1. 1999: Require health care providers and
agencies to exchange medical records
electronically through a standardized data
exchange protocol on the statewide
telecommunications network.
2. 2000: Develop and implement the necessary
automated systems and network capabilities to
provide for the electronic exchange of health
care information for all users (for example,
public agencies, providers, other payers, and
citizens of Arizona), and to provide incentives
for eliminating paper based information
exchange methods.
Objective B:
Provide primary health care providers with
telecommunications access to a hierarchy of
specialized medical advice.
24 State of Arizona
Strategies:
1. 1997: Develop and implement the necessary
automated systems and network capabilities
through the statewide telecommunications
network to provide electronic access (on a fee
for access basis) to information contained
within medical libraries to all primary health
care providers and other interested parties.
2. 1997: Develop and implement a Rural Health
Care Assistance Program, in coordination with
State medical associations, which facilitates
access to urban medical specialists for
consultation through electronic information
exchange methods (for example,
teleconferencing) on the statewide
telecommunications network.
3. 1999: Develop and implement Distance
Learning certification programs for medical
paraprofessionals through the statewide
telecommunications network, which enable
participants to obtain the necessary credentials
to secure employment or maintain certification.
This program will include a tuition
reimbursement component which provides for
loan reductions in exchange for health care
service in rural areas.
Objective C:
Provide health care professionals with
telecommunications access to medical records.
Strategies:
1. 1998: Develop and implement the necessary
hardware and software applications and
network provisions, such as on-line patient
records and smart card technologies, to enable
health care professionals to diagnose and
monitor the health conditions of patients in
home based settings from office locations.
2. 1998: Establish broadband telecommuni-cations
links between medical facilities
throughout Arizona to implement the electronic
transmission of medical images (for example,
X-Ray, CAT, MRI, Ultrasound, and PET) or
diagnostic test data to facilitate remote medical
consultation.
GOAL # 8
Increase the technological awareness of Arizonans on
how to use telecommunications to match their needs.
Objective A:
Provide regional workshops and demonstration projects
to increase information technology awareness and
skills.
Strategies:
1. 1995: Develop and implement a statewide
telecommunications Public Relations and
Marketing (Communications) Plan.
2. 1996: Notify citizens of the availability of
telecommunications information and literature
through public radio and television broadcasting
entities, the local media, and educational
institutions.
3. 1997: Administer Technology Awareness and
Skills workshops in all Arizona counties and
rural cities (where feasible). Incorporate
ongoing workshops into statewide technology
training curriculum and schedules, based upon
demand.
Objective B:
Provide information to small business and assist them
in using telecommunications to increase their
competitiveness.
Strategies:
1. 1996: Provide small businesses opportunities to
observe and learn the different uses of available
technology through seminars and exhibits with
related telecommunications literature and
guides. State and local government agencies
will assist local community organizations to
accomplish these activities.
2. 1997: Coordinate with the Small Business
Administration and other public and private
groups to share information and implement
programs on the use of new and emerging
telecommunications technologies for the
Arizona small business community.
GOAL # 9
Maintain and improve affordable universal access to
basic telecommunications services.
Objective A:
Manage the costs of telecommunications and
telecomputing between all government agencies and
the public to do the following:
Control cost growth consistent with value.
Establish an interagency, single point-of-interface.
Establish a uniform cost of access within each
community of interest. This would include cost
effective management of networking between
the State, County, Cities, universities, schools,
business, and the public.
Establish a cost and a capacity forecasting
environment that the public and government
agencies can review and understand.
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure
Strategies: Strategy:
1. 1995: Prepare and adopt a network business
plan, including provisions for collecting
revenues, allocating expenses, and ensuring
equitable access by all Arizona citizens (parity
policy).
2. 1999: Enable the state's general population to
access government services through a
Government Point-of-Presence (GPOP)
technology configuration using a single data
server or a collection of data servers.
3. 1999: Route all interagency automation
services through GPOP and connectivity
corridors.
Objective B:
Establish a market for electronic access to Government
and Government data services that the private sector
can (1) identify, and (2) compete for private sector
provisioning.
Strategies:
1. 1996: Implement the network business plan to
allocate the revenues and expenses for usage
fees, usage reimbursements, and subscription
charges for government services.
2. 1996: Establish one (1) government service and
industry cluster as a pilot for partnering,
utilizing economic development initiatives and
funding. This will include a data base of
telephone andlor terminal address numbers.
Objective C:
Establish a unified information infrastructure
throughout the State in graduated phases between the
following entities:
The State and County seats.
The County seats and the municipal
corporations.
The County seats and the special districts.
The schools.
The libraries.
The public.
Commercial resellers.
Strategy:
1996: Grade the connectivity corridors,
GPOPs, and government application servers. In
addition, grade and classify the classes and
types of terminals.
Objective D:
Establish an information infrastructure that maintains
an open and competitive equipment and services
procurement environment.
1995: Implement a directorate of competitive
advocacy, including rules governing vendor
participation and public domain products.
Objective E:
Establish an information infrastructure attractive to the
technologically advanced businesses and industries
yhich reside in Arizona or who would consider
relocation to Arizona because of access to such a
facility.
Strategy:
1998: Implement virtual resource pools for
grants, language services, financial transactions
services, etc., based on existing Arizona
business profiles and future business relocation
profiles.
Objective F:
Establish an information infrastructure which would
advance our state educational and private sector
research facilities work, visibility, and stature in high
technology areas.
Strategy:
1999: Implen~enmt echanisms that leverage
low-duty cycle asset investments and reuse
synergistics for activities which would not
otherwise be cost justifiable.
GOAL # 10
Provide a telecommunications infrastructure which
integrates technologies and networks to maximize the
user's choice of information exchange.
Objective A.
Design a telecommunications highway for the
connectivity of Arizona citizens to information based
systems and networks.
Strategies:
1, 1996: Develop and implement telephonic and
computer based access methods (for example,
Internet, FAX, and Voice Response Units) to all
levels of government information, including
public education, based on the results of
customer needs assessments.
2. 1996: Complete the design of a statewide
network.
3. 1999: Complete a statewide telecommuni-cations
network utilizing multiple technologies
and access methods that interface with national
and international networks through network
hubs.
State of Arizona
Objective B:
Provide a network that is dynamic, upgradable, and
easy to use and access.
Strategies:
1. 1995: Establish an ongoing standards
committee or commission to review and publish
open standards (with provisions for maximum
connectivity) for the development of computer
telecommunications networks serving the
public sector.
2. 1997: Provide incentives to private carrier
organizations for upgrading networks which
serve hard to reach populations (for example,
Native American communities). This will
include provisions for upgrading systems to
intelligent networks.
Objective C:
Incorporate existing and emerging telecommunications
standards.
Strategies:
1. 1996: Ensure that the established standards
committee or commission adopts rules to
incorporate existing and emerging
telecommunications standards while
maintaining open system provisions for national
and international communications.
2. 1997: Adopt state IRM strategic network plans
and standards that are consistent with national
and international standards and that promote an
open systems environment.
Objective D:
Encourage research, development, and innovation in
telecommunications.
Strategy:
1995: On an ongoing basis, promote
collaborative efforts between educational,
government, and private entities to provide
incentives or rewards for research,
development, and innovation in
telecommunications. This will include the
utilization of local, State, and Federal grants to
support research, demonstration projects, and
technology transfers from other states.
NOTE: See Goal #2 for provisions to integrate public
networks to avoid unnecessary duplication.
GOAL # 11
Provide an economic environment allowing common
carrier telecommunication infrastructures to serve
government needs.
Objective A:
Encourage systematic private investment in common
carrier infrastructures to meet Arizona's dynamic needs.
Strategies:
1. 1994: Identify regulatory and legislative
roadblocks limiting the common carrier's ability
to build infrastructures capable of supporting
Arizona's telecommunications networks.
2. 1995: Draft legislative or regulatory changes to
create an economic environment encouraging
common carrier construction of infrastructure to
support Arizona's networks.
3. 1995: Establish provisions for private
investments in common carrier telecommuni-cations
infrastructures which serve government
needs. This will include an analysis of
outsourcing and privatization of government
networks, as well as a statewide owned
government network.
Objective B:
Encourage partnerships between government
information users and information suppliers to take full
advantage of the capabilities and resources of both.
Strategies:
1. 1994: Identify regulatory and legislative
roadblocks that limit private and public
partnerships from developing a I
telecommunications network to take advantage
of a common carrier's infrastructure.
2. 1995: Draft legislative and regulatory changes
to create an economic environment encouraging
private and public partnerships to develop
networks.
3. 1998: Adopt provisions for partnerships
between public and private organizations on
projects designed to demonstrate innovative
approaches to implementing robust open
systems and internal data telecommunications
networks.
Objective C:
Avoid unnecessary redundancies in telecommunications
infrastructures.
Strategies:
1. 1994: Survey and identify those networks and
services that could be combined without
compromising security or stability of services
and networks.
2. 1996: Provide a pilot incentive program for
network integration projects that eliminate
unnecessary network redundancies and
maximize a return on investment for users.
Strategic Plan for Arizona's Telecommunications Infrastructure
Part C. Progress Measurements and
Feedback Mechanisms
The next key step in the development and
implementation of an integrated AZTEL 2000
work plan will be the development of measurable
benchmarks to track the completion of the
strategies for achieving the objectives and goals.
The following are examples of the quantifiable
benchmarks that could be established.
GOAL # 1
GOAL # 3
The status of the Security Committee and the
existence and usage of security policies and
procedures, and the level of the Board's facilitation
of public access to non confidential data.
The existence and operation of periodic security
reviews and risk analyses for determining
compliance levels for privacy and access to
information, In addition, the status of corrective
actions to implement safeguards for identified
vulnerabilities.
The cost of government telecommunications
networks operating throughout the State and the
degree of centralized accessibility to such
networks.
The cost of electronic access to government
services for citizens and the availability of access
points throughout the State.
The degree of electronic access to government
services, and the extent of existing
telecommunications technologies being utilized (for
example, kiosks, voice response units, audio text,
and FAX). In addition, the degree to which citizens
can apply for and receive government services
without physically traveling to office locations.
The existence and degree of distribution of
government directories of locations and
electronically provided services. The degree of
utilization of existing automation technologies
available for access.
The level of citizen (customer) satisfaction with
electronic access to government services.
The usage level of toll free (800) access to State
agencies.
-
GOAL #2
The status of the Information Infrastructure Policy
Board, telecommunications governance statutes and
regulations, and the interrelationship of the State
IRM organization. In addition, the level of
coordination in facilitating telecommunications
initiatives with economic development activities
throughout the State.
The degree of unnecessary redundancy in
government telecommunications networks and the
extent of on-line information clearinghouses. In
addition, the extent of coverage, quality, timeliness,
and reliability of government networks.
The extent of access to national and international
information networks through the State
telecommunications infrastructure.
GOAL # 4
The existence and utilization of statewide
educational programs on the use of
telecommunications technologies for citizens.
The content and usage of educational databases for
lifelong learning programs. In addition, the extent
of electronic access to public sector information.
The degree of integration of telecommunications
materials and programs within educational
curriculums throughout the State, and for the
telecommunications infrastructure work force
initiatives and the availability of information
clearinghouses.
The existence and utilization of worker retraining
programs utilizing telecommunications
technologies.
The existence and utilization of distance learning
programs through on-line access to instructional
applications such as TV, video conferences, and
libraries.
The percentage of classrooms connected to the two-way
telecommunications network and the degree of
interface with national and international networks.
GOAL # 5
The extent of geographic coverage of enhanced
emergency (9 1 1) service and the diversity of
technologies utilized.
The extent of geographic coverage of wireless and
mobile communications within areas not addressed
by existing services.
The degree to which control networks enable
mobile radio systems, across public safety
organizations, to interoperate with seamless access
provisions and the extent of their utilization.
The existence and usage of electronic confinement
systems and the level of existing technology
utilized.
The level of public investment in networks and
applications to develop a robust statewide
environment.
State of Arizona
GOAL # 6
information with, and providing monitoring
programs for, small businesses.
The existence and utilization of a comprehensive
statewide telecommunications network and the
number and quality of information services
provided throughout the network.
The existence and utilization of electronic
commerce programs, including the extent of
telecommuting programs.
The extent to which network access and usage
provisions address the needs of special population
groups (for example, disabled, hearing impaired,
and Native American communities).
The extent to which telecommunications services
support the Arizona business community and work
force expansion, as well as the relocation of new
businesses to Arizona.
GOAL # 7
The extent to which health care providers and
agencies electronically exchange medical records
and the cost of related telecommunications.
The extent to which health care professionals utilize
telecommunications to access information
contained within medical libraries.
The existence and usage of distance learning
certification programs for medical professionals
and the number of program graduates by
professional specialization category.
The existence and usage of Rural Health Care
Assistance programs that facilitate remote medical
consultation, and the degree of access and coverage
of network services.
* The existence, coverage, and usage of home based
patient monitoring and medical images
transmission technologies (for example, X-RAY,
CAT, MRI, Ultrasound, and PET) by the medical
community.
GOAL # 8 - The existence and effectiveness of a statewide
telecommunications Public Relations and
Marketing (Communications) Plan and the extent to
which public and local broadcasts inform the public
of telecommunications information.
The number and quality of Technology Awareness
and Skills workshops by geographical area, and the
degree of integration of these workshops with
telecommunications technology training
curriculums (where appropriate).
The number and quality of telecommunications
technology seminars and exhibits provided for
small businesses by local communities. In addition,
the level of coordination with the Small Business
Administration and other relevant groups in sharing
new and emerging telecommunications technology
GOAL # 9
Status of a network business plan for collecting
revenues, allocating expenses, and ensuring
equitable access to telecommunications services.
A measurement of the cost of basic
telecommunications in Arizona as compared to
national averages. In addition, the percentage of
citizens with access to basic telecommunications
services within their local communities.
The level of access provided to government
services through a Government Point-of-Presence
(GPOP) technology configuration and connectivity
corridors.
The availability and utilization of virtual resource
pools for grants, language services, and financial
transaction services for Arizona businesses.
GOAL # 10
A measurement of level of connectivity by Arizona
citizens, including traditionally hard to reach
populations (for example, Native American
communities and geographically remote
communities) to the State's information
infrastructure, including national and international
telecommunications networks.
The extent of telephonic and computer based access
methods for accessing government information
within agencies, as compared to customer survey
needs assessments.
The status of policy for open systems standards and
related IRM strategic network plans, with
provisions for maximum connectivity, for State
telecommunications networks.
The extent of partnering efforts between
government, education, and the private sector in
providing incentives for research and innovative
development projects in telecommunications.
GOAL # 11
The status of legislation and regulatory policy
which encourages public and private partnerships
for common carrier construction of a network
infrastructure that supports identified needs.
The extent of private investment in the
telecommunications network architecture that
serves government needs.
The existence and extent of public and private
partnerships for projects that demonstrate
innovative approaches to implementing robust open
systems and inter-LATA networks.
The extent of unnecessary redundant
telecommunications networks throughout the state.
- -
Strategic Plan for Arizona? Telecommunications Infrastructure
As previously mentioned, these benchmarks are only In addition, the task force has developed a
examples. The process of selecting benchmarks is not comprehensive set of goals, objectives, and related
a trivial one. A process that leads to a consensus strategies for incorporation into this report through
among key individuals and organizations concerning weekly meetings, drawing upon expertise from
such quantifiable measures should be developed and multiple levels of government, and through
implemented to establish agreed upon measurement information provided by the vendor community using
techniques and gauge progress toward the achievement the request for information (RFI) process. The task
of each strategy and objective adopted. force has also proposed a number of examples that
could be used for bench marking progress toward the
Once such benchmarks have been adopted, current
baseline data for
fulfillment of the
proposed
each of the objectives
proposed through
measurements
should be
measurable
strategies.
determined,
because we need Meeting the
to know where we benchmarks that
are now in order are eventually
to gauge the level adopted will
of progress we are definitely be a
making during challenge for the
any specified time State.
period. Once The ongoing
baseline data is monitoring
obtained for each process should
adopted include the
benchmark periodic measure-measurement,
the ment of perform-proposed
ance against the
strategies and benchmarks and a
related action readjustment of
steps can be the implemen-updated
with more tation strategies
realistic dates for proposed within
achievement. this document. In
Part D. some cases, the
measurement
Summary process will
suggest that the
The AZTEL inzkl target
2000 Task Force has spent considerable time benchmarks adopted were unrealistic or inappropriate.
performing a literature review of existing and planned When this occurs, the benchmarks themselves should
telecommunications initiatives, state plans, and be adjusted.
projects being undertaken throughout the nation.
30 State of Arizona
IX. AZTEL 2000 Implementatzon Plan
T his section contains an overview of a five year * Establish a Information Infrastructure Policy
implementation plan of the major activities Board to oversee network development,
required to design and implement the statewide implementation, and maintenance activities.
telecommunications network envisioned by the AZTEL
2000 Task Force committee. Establish a Security Committee and establish a
network securitv volicv. . A < The list of activities following each year contains the
major strategies to be accomplished. All time periods Develop policies for governing the access and
are represented in calendar years. The network design use of information transmitted through the
and installation will be an evolving vrocess. so not all network.
customers will have service at the